Drug testing for local tracks , good or bad idea

[openwm53]

hmmm

what about steroids or physical enhancers????

[egspeedway]

what about steroids or physical enhancers????

By all means God forbid a driver be physically up to the task at hand. In all seriousness this is an extremely complex problem with no simple solution at the local level. One would like to think given the danger of our sport the drivers would self police themselves at least. But after reading the final outcome on the Stewart deal, that to is a dream. The Stewart deal happened at an ESS sprint car race so don't say it is all the sanctioning bodies fault. They didn't smoke the joint.

[Matt Albee]

Out of curiosity, what happens when a driver ( or crew member...are we going to test them too? ) gets bounced from a track because he tested positive. Can he just go to the track in the next county and race until his " suspension " is up?
Doesn't seem like much of a punishment.
As i mentioned in an earlier post, if all of the tracks don't sign on with the same exact rules and regulations, then one track, or series, will bust you for testing positive while another track wouldn't care.
This has been an issue since racing began. We've all read about Curtis Turner and Joe Weatherly showing up to race after a wild night of partying, go out and run the race and then go back to the party. It's probably time to take a hard look at drug testing for short tracks. And for rules and procedures to adopt, the NHRA program would be a very good start.

[egspeedway]

Matt has hit the nail on the head for the local track operator. In the absence of a sanctioning body the drug/alcohol issue is track by track. The tracks could form an alliance with reciprocal rules on the issue but that is not likely. This is why at the outset I mentioned insurance companies as they are the only common denominator for both dirt and asphalt . What I fear most is government intervention. Unfortunately the Ward/Stewart deal has put this issue on page one for the entire nation lets hope cooler heads prevail.

[Lurkin]

How many drivers do you think we'd lose in Florida? 5%? 25%? None? Honestly, how many?

To my knowledge, and I have a keyboard so I am an expert, there are no "sobriety standards" for Pot right now so them even saying Ward was "impaired" is very debatable because there are no "Standards", they haven't been established. There's no roadside sobriety test for pot. They might use the ones already established for booze(you know follow the pen with your eyes etc) but I bet a good lawyer would shoot holes in that....it's for booze not pot.

I wouldn't have a problem with drug testing at all, I'll take one right now no problem but it's going to be legal everywhere soon, as it should in my opinion, the fact that drinking is legal but smoking pot isn't is hypocritical as hell because pot is way more innocent than booze ever dreamed of being.

But if they do start testing at the track who decides what amount is ok? None? What about when they legalize it? If a guy doesn't smoke for a day or two before he'll be fine imo but it stays in your system for 30 days so he'd still pop positive.

Many many unanswered questions in my mind as to how to implement it and I think you're going to see these same questions raised for street driving soon.


But don't fool yourself, if you don't think it would lower car counts by quite a bit in Fla you're fooling yourself. Not to mention the cost to the already overburdened track operators.

It's a complicated question.

[Phil Jacques]

How many drivers do you think we'd lose in Florida? 5%? 25%? None? Honestly, how many?

To my knowledge, and I have a keyboard so I am an expert, there are no "sobriety standards" for Pot right now so them even saying Ward was "impaired" is very debatable because there are no "Standards", they haven't been established. There's no roadside sobriety test for pot. They might use the ones already established for booze(you know follow the pen with your eyes etc) but I bet a good lawyer would shoot holes in that....it's for booze not pot.

I wouldn't have a problem with drug testing at all, I'll take one right now no problem but it's going to be legal everywhere soon, as it should in my opinion, the fact that drinking is legal but smoking pot isn't is hypocritical as hell because pot is way more innocent than booze ever dreamed of being.

But if they do start testing at the track who decides what amount is ok? None? What about when they legalize it? If a guy doesn't smoke for a day or two before he'll be fine imo but it stays in your system for 30 days so he'd still pop positive.

Many many unanswered questions in my mind as to how to implement it and I think you're going to see these same questions raised for street driving soon.


But don't fool yourself, if you don't think it would lower car counts by quite a bit in Fla you're fooling yourself. Not to mention the cost to the already overburdened track operators.

It's a complicated question.

There would definitely have to be a testing system similar to the breathalyzer test for alcohol with sobriety standards put in place. You are 1000% right. This would absolutely be the key to something like that.

[Lurkin]

There's swab test that is cheaper than urine, blood or hair, but it still has to go out to a lab. But again the "standards" for what is impaired are still up for debate.

I know for a fact I've raced with people that were on coke and people who were stoned and people who were drinking. Most of them were more erratic F'd up then when they were straight and a few of them were surprisingly good. I guess I better not name names but I watched a Prominent Racer and his Famous Car owner, who we all know did that stuff, smoke a big doober and then go out and smoke the field at Speedworld. But if he hadn't of done that kind of thing everyone in the country would know his name but that was his choice.

[zerofor]

Go Ahead

Start testing for everything.(And see how fast your ten car field shrinks to three)

[Don Nerone]

25 years ago the Ins co that provided the race insurance for the tracl had a rule that the drivers must have a valid lisence.
We checked them at the back gate and when 50% didn't have one we stoped checking and the rule was changed to a age limit.
What if you were racing ware they have changed the law and smoking pot is not agenst the law.. What them.
Its not drinking it being drunk. so what about drugs.
Cost $35 at the cheap places to do a drug screen.
Are the pit pass going up to $75 to pay for the drug testing.
Is there any common sence left in the world?

don62

[Groundpounder]

Common sense tells me I don't want to be on a track as a driver or a worker where the participants are gacked up, if I can help it.

Your comment about the cost? Just another example of how drugs impose a cost to society!

If they become legal? Well just vote NO to amendment 2 to keep that from happening!

[Don Nerone]

Common sense tells me I don't want to be on a track as a driver or a worker where the participants are gacked up, if I can help it.

Your comment about the cost? Just another example of how drugs impose a cost to society!

If they become legal? Well just vote NO to amendment 2 to keep that from happening!

The tracks will make a great place for flea markets. And that will be the way that drugs impaced weekly stock car racing when its gone.

don62