From the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, published in Circulation in December of 2015:
"As a matter of general policy, the use of performance-enhancing drugs and supplements should be prohibited by schools, universities, and other sponsoring/participating organizations as a condition for continued participation in athletic activities."
At the end of the day, the real question in my mind is why the leadership of USMS is unwilling to champion a position statement prohibiting the use of these drugs unless they have been prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a legitimate medical condition. What is the compelling argument against doing so?
"Unwilling to champion" is overstating things. To my knowledge, such a position statement has never been proposed or submitted to the board or HOD to consider. It just hasn't come up. Maybe it has in the past when I wasn't on the board. (You said something about it coming up at convention but I don't recall it, and anyway I'm not talking about actual drug testing but a position statement.)
Complaining about it on the forums is just water-cooler whining. If this is near and dear to you, draft a position statement and a justification for adopting it, and submit it to Patty, who controls the board's agenda. It should take you less time then you've spent writing about it on this forum.
If she is unwilling to devote time to the matter (it isn't as if we lack for things to do) then find a delegate from your LMSC willing to propose it from the floor of an HOD meeting at convention. Which is this week.
From the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, published in Circulation in December of 2015:
"As a matter of general policy, the use of performance-enhancing drugs and supplements should be prohibited by schools, universities, and other sponsoring/participating organizations as a condition for continued participation in athletic activities."
At the end of the day, the real question in my mind is why the leadership of USMS is unwilling to champion a position statement prohibiting the use of these drugs unless they have been prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a legitimate medical condition. What is the compelling argument against doing so?
"Unwilling to champion" is overstating things. To my knowledge, such a position statement has never been proposed or submitted to the board or HOD to consider. It just hasn't come up. Maybe it has in the past when I wasn't on the board. (You said something about it coming up at convention but I don't recall it, and anyway I'm not talking about actual drug testing but a position statement.)
Complaining about it on the forums is just water-cooler whining. If this is near and dear to you, draft a position statement and a justification for adopting it, and submit it to Patty, who controls the board's agenda. It should take you less time then you've spent writing about it on this forum.
If she is unwilling to devote time to the matter (it isn't as if we lack for things to do) then find a delegate from your LMSC willing to propose it from the floor of an HOD meeting at convention. Which is this week.
