Enge loses F3000 title

[Sato san]

Originally posted by ghinzani
Come back Thomas and win next year!! reckon he'd try again?

No way , i cant see him staying in F3000 for another year . He was runner up last year and made his F1 debut for Prost as well , then this year to have this happen . F3000 wil hold nothing for him . Its time to move on . But i cant see any F1 team touching him , what with the PR being like it is

[Liz]

Well, he drove the Prodrive Ferrari very well at Laguna Seca and it's at least possible they may keep him on. I hope they do. One punishment for one crime is adequate.

[Sato san]

yes , maybe sportscars will be his future .

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by Wrex
Our sports men and women are idols of many young and impressionable people. There is no doubt that their behaviour has heavy influence on them.

I'd say there's plenty of doubt.

And no one is suggesting that Tomas was advocating pot use, or even admitting to using it. So how can his private, secret behaviour influence these youth?

Finally, since the test does not specifically give a time frame for use, I assume whatever use occurred was at a time where he knew he would not be under any influence while driving. Are the FIA simply assuming the opposite - that its detection means he was under the influence? My understanding is that the evidence outlasts the influence by weeks...

Putting it another way, if a driver has a lager the day before the race, is he penalized? Or does he get away with it simply because the evidence is no longer there?

Or are we back to Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" social engineering?

[Peter Mallett]

Its a medical point maybe but the rule is zero tolerence. I'm not sure how long it takes to get out of the system but presumably it wasn't long enough before the test.

Its the rules and he knows them as well as anyone else. And unless people haven't noticed, when you are a celebrity you don't have a secret, private life.

[Peter Mallett]

One more thing.

He's a good talented driver and what irritates the life out of me is that we lose these talents through shear stupidity.

[Sato san]

another quick point.....in all honesty , a ZERO Tolerance is the only way to have it , as that way no one can misunderstand the situation . Its hard on Tomas for sure , but it will make all the other drivers in different series take note .

[alfasud]

Originally posted by Peter Mallett
Its a medical point maybe but the rule is zero tolerence. I'm not sure how long it takes to get out of the system but presumably it wasn't long enough before the test.

From my NZ Motorsport Manual (probably direct from FIA/IOC) is says "greater than 15 nanograms (THC) per millilitre" which is not quite the same as zero. I'm not sure what time frame that implies however.

Its the rules and he knows them as well as anyone else.

Thats true and he can't complain about that, but the way the rules have been applied have been bad for all the F3000 competitors and the sport in general. He should of lost points for the race preceding the tests and then everyone could get on with the championship.

As for the comment about "Cigarettes are legal all round the world"..... not on a train, bus, public building, place of work.... at least not in many countries.

So I guess the moral of the story is "Just say no to drugs".... unless they offer a multi-million dollar sponsorship deal, in which case you *must* say yes to drugs!!!

Bad Tomas, bad Spa.

[mac]

Originally posted by Bibendum
OK, so it's only a tangentially F1 topic:

But is this not the most crass, blue-nosed, prissy, tight-arsed load of ******** you ever heard of? He may or may not have smoked some grass. Oh dear. We can condense all of our ructions about Ferrari manoeuvering and sanitized driver-speak into this one trope: Corporate image. And now, despite being sponsored by a drug which is more addicting than heroin, which kills more people each year than motor accidents, motorsport wishes to spit out and reject someone who smoked grass.

****es me off.

Drivers place their lives in the hands of their fellow competitors. If they cannot trust who they are racing, then they should not race.

How would you feel if Driver A crashes into Driver B, subsequently seriously injuring or, God forbid, killing Driver B. At a later date, Driver A is found to have canabis in his bloodstream during this period. Now this does not mean that he crashed because he was on dope. What it does mean is that his mental capacity was reduced, subsequently resulting in a higher risk of being involved in an accident. How would you feel?

You cannot drive on public roads, there is NO way you should be allowed to drive racing cars where fellow competitors are placing there lives in the trust they hold in you, their peer.

It's your choice - you want to be a race car driver, you don't smoke dope. Simple as that.

[sonic]

Originally posted by Peter Mallett
Its a medical point maybe but the rule is zero tolerence. I'm not sure how long it takes to get out of the system but presumably it wasn't long enough before the test.

One of the problems with Cannabis is that it is not water soluble so its detectible for up to 6 weeks after smoking! (unless you take a hair sample in which you can detect it forever - unless you get a hair cut!)

The ludicrous thing is Cannabis actually makes a driver less agressive, more cautious and take fewer risks - it also impares short term memory. Thomas may have probaly won the championship more easily if he'd adopted a more professional attitude.

Don't get me wrong, I think Cannabis is pretty Harmless in terms of recreation and the laws that banned it are based on crazy propaganda from the 1920s/30s - but the bottom line is that it does make you a slower driver - and if you are a serious competitor you just don't do anything that may impair your performance do you?

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by mac
How would you feel if Driver A crashes into Driver B, subsequently seriously injuring or, God forbid, killing Driver B. At a later date, Driver A is found to have canabis in his bloodstream during this period. Now this does not mean that he crashed because he was on dope. What it does mean is that his mental capacity was reduced, subsequently resulting in a higher risk of being involved in an accident.

But if cannibis stays around for two weeks in "trace amounts" (as quoted in the FIA announcement), are you saying Tomas would have diminished capacity for that long? No evidence that I know of supports this.

Which puts us back to the point about whether drivers are allowed other chemicals that dissipate more quickly than cannibis. Can a driver have a bunch of drinks the night before? Even though the alcohol may not show up in tests the next day, he may have a hellacious hangover. Is his capacity diminished?

This is why in drinking and driving laws, there are limits set. Granted, they're often too high (in Ontario it's .080, and really it should be half of that). But the FIA's limit is essentially the detection limit of the tests. It has nothing to do with capacity, and everything to do with the legality of the substance.

This, I think, is the crux of the argument. Those of us who think the penalty is silly are basing it on the rule being ill-written. We don't condone consumption of mind-altering substances in the vicinity of any driving. We just think that there are times that are private, and if it can be asserted that the private activity has no effect on the public, it should be left alone.

[Wrex]

This is turnig in to a "Is this drug OK?" debate. Who cares?

The point is its against the rules. If the rules are wrong change the rules. But while its against the regulations, thats it, end of story. He broke the rules, now he pays the penalty.

[paul-collins]

True, evidence suggests he broke the rule. He's chosen not to dispute the evidence, so his choice is to accept the penalty or fight the rule. He's chosen the former.

The reaction here I think is based upon the feeling that his career may be irretrievably tainted for an indescretion that to me is inconsequential. Since I can't question the charge's validity, I question the rule that begets the charge. I don't want his career to be ruined over this. The explicit penalty is enough. (Some may say it's too much.)

[Bibendum]

Rrrr.

Couple of comments: My initial post was really just an emission of frustration at creeping puritanism, which is (in my view) the favoured terrain of the armies of darkness. But the responses have been interesting and appreciated.

However, a number of respondents appear to assume that (a) Enge drove "under the influence" and that (b) I endorse or defend such an action. The first has not been demonstrated or (as far as I know) even asserted; the second is demonstrably untrue, if you will look closely at what I argued. Nor, incidentally, am I advocating a rule-free anarchy for racing! I simply think the rules should be pertinent, rather than impertinent. I don't believe we should let motor sport take on that Henry Ford intrusiveness -- Henry, who treated workers very well for the most part by the standards of the day, but would fire them for anything he perceived as an irregularity in their personal lives. Corporations, get out of my bedroom!

Speaking of which, finally, on my masturbation remark. This spurred some wry response and may have been a bit obscure, so I ought to clarify a little. I was, as someone inferred, trying to point out the difference between public and private spheres of action, and of the existence of actions which are 'popularly' (chiefly by moralizers) perceived as "bad" or "immoral" which, nevertheless, fall properly within the domain of the private. I should also note that (unless otherwise busy) I'll raise my hand to be counted, without reserve, among the advocates of masturbation.

But on this public/private question -- nor do I accept that public figures do not have, and are not entitled to have, a private area of their lives. On the one hand, being part of a spectacle like motor racing, whose sustenance comes from the sale of advertising, means one has to participate in public life and have a public persona. Some people do it well (DC), some loath it and refuse it as much as possible (JV), but everyone has to do it to some extent. None of this means that those people who participate have relinquished all right to a life they can call their own. None of us, I think, would be very comfortable having every single area of our lives examined and assessed by others - and why should we? Human beings are complex and contradictory, and can by no means be 'reformed' into perfect, seamless avatars of advertisers' fantasy.

I agree with the respondent who says this should not evolve into a "are drugs ok?" discussion -- that certainly wasn't my central point. I think driving anything, least of all a racing car, with impaired reactions and a modified consciousness is a lethally stupid idea. Again, nobody suggests Enge has done or would do such a thing.

I hope that makes my initial eruption (late at night...) a bit more comprehensible.

best,
Bibendum

[Liz]

I think we are all in agreement that (1) Everyone is entitled to a "private life" in which he can do pretty much as he pleases, and (2) actions have consequences. There has never been a single instant in recorded history in which people operated in a conseqence-free vacuum, nor can there be such a thing; even if you live on a world all by yourself, if you step off the edge of a 24 story building without a parachute, you will die when you hit the ground.

As far as what regulations your boss is entitled to put forth and insist you follow as a condition of employment, well they don't call him "the boss" for nothing. Fortunately in most jobs you can discuss the subject with your boss, but when the boss says "These are my rules," then you can either follow them or find another job.

It's ironic to me that people who argue Enge's right to smoke pot (an illegal substance) if he isn't actually driving at the time would scream their heads off were Enge to light up a tobacco cigarette (a legal substance) withing three city blocks of where they happen to be standing.

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by Liz
It's ironic to me that people who argue Enge's right to smoke pot (an illegal substance) if he isn't actually driving at the time would scream their heads off were Enge to light up a tobacco cigarette (a legal substance) withing three city blocks of where they happen to be standing.

Well, now, ignoring your exaggeration, I see the anti-smokers' point - after all, if your cigarette is directly impinging on their ability to breathe clean air, they have a higher claim. Their right to breathe supercedes your right to smoke. Smokers can't seem to get that. (I'm a former and special-occasion smoker who, as a child, had moderate asthma)

Enge's right to smoke pot, were it legal to possess it, would hinge on his not impacting others - whether it be through second-hand smoke, or endangering others with his actions as an effect of his smoking. If his activities don't impact others, they're by definition private and none of my business. Nor of FIA's, IM(NS)HO.

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by Liz
As far as what regulations your boss is entitled to put forth and insist you follow as a condition of employment, well they don't call him "the boss" for nothing. Fortunately in most jobs you can discuss the subject with your boss, but when the boss says "These are my rules," then you can either follow them or find another job.

Your third option is to sue under whatever constitutional rights you have in your country.

[Bibendum]

I wasn't going to jump in when my email told me that she'd responded to the post; but I must subscribe to Paul Collins' point about smoking.

More compelling, though, I'm struck by the problematic (I'm being polite) logic of Liz' assertions. Actions have consequences? This point is made with a bizarrely unapt illustration, but even so it hardly seems to touch the case.

As for the "irony" Liz perceives, it is based on a really groundless presumption. To which "people" can she refer, and what evidence does she have of their attitudes? I don't really see any of this addressing the issue.

Most distressing to me, however, in Liz' response is her unblinking devotion to the idea that "the boss" has essentially property rights over her or his employee. The entitlement is precisely the product of a social contract which is not and cannot be unilateral, and I think it is foolish to totalize the power of "the boss" to determine conditions of employment. Employment, even in conditions of slavery and indenture, represents a transaction. The power one has to influence that transaction depends very much, yes, on one's position. And this is precisely why conditions of employment are the object of social legislation, formally, and of informal social and cultural structure.

[Bibendum]

And as I was writing my blurb, Paul Collins has generated a more succinct and to-the-point remark! Thank you.

[Red]

Unfortunately Paul's point is absolutely irrelevant I believe. To my knowledge, there isn't and never was a constitutional right to be a champion. We're talking about sport, not a life and death problem. If I were to follow your logic, any soccer player can sue the referee if he plays the ball with the hand 'coz he doesn't like the rule.

[Bibendum]

Um, Red, I don't think that was Paul's point. He was merely commenting -- as I have -- on Liz's conception of the relatinship between bosses and employees. You appear to have gone to the Liz School of Logic where, I fear, you may have inadvertantly sampled the cup of mediocrity...

[paul-collins]

Actually, he could sue - but he'd lose. It would be shown that the hand-ball rule is absolutely required to enable the proper playing of the game.

I don't think you can argue that is the case for this rule, though. FIA's press release listed Enge's substance in their "performance-enhancing drugs" ruling, only later stating it was cannibis. How does this end up in that list?

If the substance is on a list for "performance-degradation,", as I pointed out before, the nature of the substance and its behaviour in the body vis the testing results would require a threshold that was more meaningful than detection limits, which is what they have now. The level would have to correspond to when the most susceptible user would be materially affected by consumption of the substance.

I'll stop there, rather than subjecting y'all to another essay.

[Red]

Originally posted by Bibendum
You appear to have gone to the Liz School of Logic

No!

But anyway, for both cases (that is in sport and a employee/boss relationship) she's right. If the boss tells you that the rules are that you don't smoke (a joint or a regular cigarette) in the office you either comply or find another job.

Paul, doesn't matter if cannabis enhances performances or diminishes them or have no effect whatsoever. It is on a black list and he shouldn't use it. You reverse the precedence of actions here. If he wanted a smoke, he FIRSTLY start, not start, succesfully conclude a campain to legalise marijuana and THEN smoke it. Right now, it's illegal. We all know that and he knows that too

[429CJ]

Just face it: Drugs (or alcohol) and driving just don't mix!

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by Red
Paul, doesn't matter if cannabis enhances performances or diminishes them or have no effect whatsoever. It is on a black list and he shouldn't use it.

I'm not arguing that. Rules are rules. Even when the law is an ass. But...

Originally posted by Red
You reverse the precedence of actions here. If he wanted a smoke, he FIRSTLY start, not start, succesfully conclude a campain to legalise marijuana and THEN smoke it. Right now, it's illegal. We all know that and he knows that too

No, the campaign for any constitutional challenge starts with deliberate breaking of the law in question, drawing attention to it, being charged, convicted, and then appealing to the relevant courts. If they deign to hear your constitutional argument, then the fight is on. It's called "Civil Disobedience." Ask Henry David Thoreau about it.

However, that's not what's happening here, as Tomas isn't fighting or even questioning the charge and penalty. He doesn't want to get into the legal fight, as it would surely slash and burn his career. He's pretty vulnerable to that. Now, if Eddie Irvine wanted to fight the rule...