performance enhancing drugs.

[mike777]

As we all grow older more drugs are being invented.

 

In bridge do you think it should be bridge legal to use drugs that improve memory or concentration in older people?

 

Would you use one?

[awm]

There's a difference between drugs prescribed a doctor to compensate for a health issue or age-related deficiency... versus totally healthy people taking drugs to improve performance. The first is fine, and I wouldn't bar older people from playing bridge just because they are taking drugs for age related health issues. But the second shouldn't be allowed, although it's hard to police.

 

To give another example, Ritalin supposedly helps with concentration. Certainly it helps people with attention disorders -- it may or may not help people who don't have such disorders focus for long periods. In principle it seems like Ritalin might help people play bridge better (concentrating for long periods is one of the difficulties in long bridge events). I think it's fine for people with ADD and a prescription to take Ritalin (and to play bridge while on Ritalin). I don't think it's okay for completely healthy people to take Ritalin just to improve their bridge.

[han]

Agree with without merit.

[Guest Jlall]

What about caffine?

[mike777]

"....don't think it's okay for completely healthy people to take Ritalin just to improve their bridge....."

 

 

 

Ok.

 

 

Of course as we get older are any of us really completely healthy. In other words as we get older where is the line between taking a chemical compound to improve concentration or memory for legal bridge reasons or not?

 

If anyone who is not completely healthy is the rule, then I think this includes all of us. :rolleyes:

[neilkaz]

"....don't think it's okay for completely healthy people to take Ritalin just to improve their bridge....."

 

 

 

Ok.

 

 

Of course as we get older are any of us really completely healthy. In other words as we get older where is the line between taking a chemical compound to improve concentration or memory for legal bridge reasons or not?

The line should be the same line used for professional baseball players and steriods.

[mike777]

"....don't think it's okay for completely healthy people to take Ritalin just to improve their bridge....."

 

 

 

Ok.

 

 

Of course as we get older are any of us really completely healthy. In other words as we get older where is the line between taking a chemical compound to improve concentration or memory for legal bridge reasons or not?

The line should be the same line used for professional baseball players and steriods.

And where is that line? I have no idea. If I get a doctor's note am I ok to take it?

[mike777]

I am really shocked so many voted no so far.

 

As you get older would you not take a compound to improve your heart or lungs or mobility? But you would not take a safe effective compound to improve your memory or concentration?

[neilkaz]

"....don't think it's okay for completely healthy people to take Ritalin just to improve their bridge....."

 

 

 

Ok.

 

 

Of course as we get older are any of us really completely healthy. In other words as we get older where is the line between taking a chemical compound to improve concentration or memory for legal bridge reasons or not?

The line should be the same line used for professional baseball players and steriods.

And where is that line? I have no idea.

Well, at the risk of getting OT and realizing that many here are not from the US and may not be familiar with the steriod scandle.

 

It seems that quite a few pro baseball players have taken steroids illegally to enhance their performance as an ongoing investigation has determined. This is currently illegal in the US (as it has been for a long time) and also against pro baseball rules.

 

So, if convicted, these athletes should be banned from any more baseball play and have any records thrown out, IMHO.

 

I feel the same way about bridge, and performance enhancing drugs should not be allowed.

 

Obviously, in high levels of competition, this will become a thorny issue, as drugs will so likely be developed that may help and may also be harmless.

[kenberg]

I'll be 69 in a week. I drink coffee and wine. Sometimes beer. Would I take a performance enhancing drug? Bridge performance, that is.

 

It seems to me that only at the highest levels is this an issue. Most of us, well maybe I should speak only for myself, are aware of many ways that we could improve. Better diet and regular exercise for example. Taking a drug doesn't appeal to me in the least.

 

Suppose, let's fantasize, I am in serious contention for whatever the senior edition of the BB is called. Would I take a drug? No, I just wouldn't. But here maybe I would like some assurance that my competitors aren't doing so either. Not that I would fret much if that turned out to be impractical.

 

So to your second question, would I do it, No.

 

To your first question, should it be allowed, I would say that medication that someone is taking as an everyday thing to help them cope with life in general, rather than has a special pick me up for the game, is fine. Taking a drug simply for the game is sick and I hope it never becomes an issue for seniors. Seems more the sort of mistake young people make. Anyway, it should be discouraged.

[mike777]

"To your first question, should it be allowed, I would say that medication that someone is taking as an everyday thing to help them cope with life in general, rather than has a special pick me up for the game, is fine."

 

Ok but this seems almost impossible to police.

If I get a doc to give me any kind of pill for whatever reasons it seems tough for the bridge police to step in.

 

Of course I think even asprin can be a performance enhancing drug in bridge or baseball. Esp if I had too much wine or beer the night before. :rolleyes:

[hrothgar]

I think that its useful to lump drugs into one of four broad categories across two distinct dimensiosn

 

The first dimension measures the extent to which there are harmful side effects.

The second dimension measures the extent to which the drug impacts bridge ability.

 

Essentially, we have four categories:

 

Category 1:

No harmful side effects / no positive impact on bridge abilities

Example - Pot

 

I'd argue that the bridge authorities have absolutely no business passing any regulations in this area. I couldn't care less if a Bermuda Bowl winner was a complete and total stoner.

 

Category 2:

Harmful side effects / no positive impact on bridge abilities

Example: Crystal Meth

 

Here once again, I'd argue that the bridge authorities shouldn't get involved. If the cops can't convince someone to stop tweaking I doubt that the WBF will have much effect.

 

Category 3:

No harmful side effects / positive impact on bridge abilities

Example: Maybe Ritalin

 

I have mixed feelings about what I am calling category three drugs. On the one hand, I suspect that it is going to be quite hard to stop. On the other, I can understand why some players would prefer that they wouldn't need to start dosing in order to compete effectively.

 

Category 4:

Harmful side effects / positive impact on bridge abilities

Example : Nicotine (I recognize that this is a provocative charge)

 

This is the one category that I strongly believe needs to be restricted.

 

I think that there is a great deal of value in banning drugs with harmful side effects (essentially) to protect the players against themselves. Case in point: the reason that I favor strict penalties for using steroids is to try to dissuade players from using them. I'm not particularly concerned about the Roger Clemens or the Barry Bonds who are making a calculated decision that its worth risking side effect XYZ in return for another 15 million dollar paycheck. What does worry me is the enormous number of players with ambitions to play high school/college/pro ball who are going to incur enormous risks with very little change of every seeing any long run compensation.

 

Personally, I suspect that there are a lot less people who aspire to a career as a bridge pro than a pro basketball player. Even so, the dynamics are much the same.

[blackshoe]

If TPTB start trying to ban caffeine or aspirin in bridge, players will ignore them.

[gwnn]

It's totally OK, then we have to draw an arbitrary random line, and from then on it's totally not OK.

[BillHiggin]

When I started at the University of Washington (a loooong time ago), my randomly assigned dorm roomie needed a fourth for bridge with two of his buddies. They asked me to learn the game. I complied and began reading all I could on bridge. As a complete novice, I was very nervous playing with them (will they notice my mistakes?). Noticing the nervousness, roomie suggested that cigaretts would help calm me. Unfortunately, I listened. By the end of my freshman year, I had caught up to all of them at the bridge table (and smoked more than any of them). Shall we attribute that to the smoking or the study?

[dicklont]

What about caffine?

Caffeïne has been on the international doping list, but they have taken it off, last year or so. Dutch chess champion Jan Timman has refused to play tournaments under the "no coffee regime".

 

I don't worry about amateurs using their medicine and alongside improve their bridge. For professionals it's a different thing, but has it ever been an issue? I don't think so.

Are doping tests done during (inter-)national championchips?

 

In chess once an experiment involved using beta-blockers to reduce the stress.

It made the player(s) feel better during the game but it had influence on their "sense for danger" and that proved fatal.

[blackshoe]

Some years ago, I read a book about addictions and their treatments. The author recounted the time she set up a conference (in Seattle, iirc) with a panel of doctors and other professionals in the field. The hotel at which the conference was set up, knowing the subject matter, decided it would be good to provide fresh fruits and fruit drinks and such instead of the more usual coffee and donuts.

 

Ninety percent of the panel refused to participate until they got their coffee. :rolleyes:

[cherdano]

What about caffine?

I think it should be allowed only to compensate a health issue. E.g. caffeine addiction.

[Guest Jlall]

I will say if I cannot drink like 10 cokes a day my bridge will suffer.

[Rossoneri]

I will say if I cannot drink like 10 cokes a day my bridge will suffer.

I usually only drink cokes on tournament days, and in a recent tournament my whole team had coke with their lunch.

[sceptic]

IF I wanted to win a world championship and I stood a chance of doing it by taking brain performance enhancing drugs, I do not see why I should not be allowed to do it

 

compare that to me havng enough money to buy the best team in the world to win a world championship

 

Just pretend that in either case my chances of winning without doing anything were 80% and by taking performance enhancing drugs it improved my chances to 98% of winning and by buying a team it improved to 99%

 

 

I think that if you can buy team mates cos you have shite loads of money then the poorer contestants should be allowed to take drugs to compensate for the disadvantage of not being able to afford the team mates of their dreams

 

If a great player suffers from unusual amounts of stress why should they not be allowed to take calming drugs that may help them, this may then give an advantage to that player as with out drugs they could never hope to compete at that level because the stress is to great

[Codo]

I tried to take brain performance enhancing pills, but they were too complicated to use, so I stopped it. :(

[CSGibson]

This seems silly. If a drug improves your mental ability with 0 side effects, then it appears that you should be taking it all the time, just like people who wear corrective lenses. Hell, put it in the water for all of us.

 

Although I personally do not believe it possible for such a thing to exist; everything that effectively changes your bio-chemistry enough to temporarily elicit one change is sure to elicit another..

[benlessard]

My philosophy is if no serious health effect are provable or if no advantage can be proven don`t bother for a legislation.

[Free]

What's the point in taking drugs anyway? If it's allowed and if everyone does it, there won't be much difference...