Andre Agassi admits drug use
In local tabloid terms: Agassi, Nag-shabu!
From The Times (London), October 28, 2009
Andre Agassi reveals his drugs shame
by Neil Harman
Andre Agassi makes the sensational confession today that he lied to the tennis authorities to escape a ban for taking hard drugs.
The American, one of the finest players to grace the game, tested positive for the highly addictive drug, crystal methamphetamine, and then duped the Association of Tennis Professionals into believing he had taken it by accident.
The admissions come in a soul-searching autobiography that is being serialised exclusively today and tomorrow in The Times.
The 1992 Wimbledon champion, the winner of eight grand-slam titles, also says that he has always secretly hated playing tennis and lived in fear of his bad-tempered and violent father…
Did the gack give him an unfair advantage? Does this erase all he achieved? What’s worse, his drug-taking or his lying to avoid a ban? (Don’t doping and lying usually go together?) Why is he revealing this now? (Mike: Kasi may libro siyang ibinebenta./Because he has a book to sell.) Discuss.
Answers to questions you might be asking, unless you wandered onto this site purely by accident >>>
October 29th, 2009 at 07:25
I dont get the rule banning athletes for using performance *impairing* drugs. What’s the deal with that? You could reprimand them or fine them for a sub-par performance not worthy of a pro athlete whose fans spent hard-earned money to watch (and you can have a sub-par performance even without drugs — just ask Davydenko), but it the performance isnt affected by the drug use, why is this a concern of the sports organizing bodies? Are they the athletes’ nannies? If theyre really concerned, have the athlete go to counselling. But banning? Blek. It’s that absurd rule that made Agassi lie about his drug use.
October 29th, 2009 at 14:59
Si Agassi, bumabatak. hahaha.
This is serious, jeg. The rule against illicit performance enhancers is not absurd. It’s all about fairness. If you drop the rule, every professional athlete in no time at all will be doping themselves just to keep up with the competition.
Sa swimming nga, swimsuit design big issue na dahil sa isyu ng fairness. Eto pa kayang highly-addictive drug na shabu. I think the PTA is wrong pa nga in classifying meth as ‘recreational’. Dun sa Times article, makikita mo na-enhance kaagad ang “mood” ni Agassi. Tamang linis nga ang loko, hehe. Remember, at that high level, importante rin ang mental at emotional state mo.
Well at least ‘di nasira ang career ni Agassi.
October 29th, 2009 at 15:12
Jeg, I agree with you. Not just for the reasons that you outlined, but also because Agassi is my favourite player. I don’t think that a stupid move and his attempts to cover it nullifies his achievements and the fact that he always (at least after he matured) behaved like a genuinely nice and down to earth guy. Besides, who can throw the first stone? In years to come, how many others of our favourite athletes will be revealed to have done things like this and worse – if they even have the guts to admit it?
I can see why Agassi would let the cat out of the bag. He’s been off the circuits too long to suffer any real repercussions (I hope). His status as a legend is secure. So, why not dish a little dirt, sit back and watch the autobiography sales shoot up? (Maybe shoot up is a poor turn of phrase in the circumstances.)
Cheers.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:52
@panfilo, My contention was shabu is performance impairing. It deprives you of sleep and makes you make poor judgments. As to the mood enhancing bit, why not ban caffeine? Or nicotine? Or alcohol? The rule is absurd, but I concede that those are the rules and therefore must be followed by those under the sports governing bodies.
Now that you mentioned swimming, Michael Phelps, probably the greatest swimmer who ever lived, was banned for smoking pot as if that gave him an unfair advantage. If you try swimming while high, youll find your times wont improve. And this statement should in no way be misconstrued as an admission that Ive tried doing just that. :-D
October 30th, 2009 at 14:42
Jeg,
I agree with you that boundaries can get fluid when it comes to substances that can influence the body and the mind. Most (if not all) societies, however, have agreed that all substances are not equal, hence the labels dangerous, addictive, illicit, hard, soft. Whether these public health assertions are backed by scientific evidence and to what extent are another matter. I think it is safe to assume that the rule makers want to err on the side of caution.
Shabu can be used as a performance enhancer; in fact it was used during World War II by the Japanese Imperial Army (thus the Japanese name). I guess it’s safe to say that the soldiers were not using it for recreation. You are of course correct to say that shabu can impair performance in the long run, especially if addictive, self-destructive behavior develops. But what if an athlete does not develop an addiction, like most users do? Can that athlete be allowed to ingest shabu before the game for additional zest and energy? What about the others then?
Unfortunately we currently don’t have the means to know which people will develop an addiction and which people will not. Until we know for sure, highly additive substances that enhance performance such as shabu should be banned from competition (hell, they’re illegal in society). And athletes who flout the rule should be punished.
October 31st, 2009 at 08:40
“In fairness we’ve always found honesty to be more refreshing when it doesn’t come at $31.99 a copy.” ~ CBS columnist Ray Ratto