Returning to the subject of the forthcoming ‘dope testing’ I thought I would try applying some objective logic to the rules. Of course writing this column and poking fun at the FAI and the Mexican Federation means that I’m almost certainly going to be spending a lot of time peeing into bottles and having breathalysers shoved at me so I may as well go the whole hog and lampoon away to my heart’s desire.
Forgetting the whole ‘naughty naughty’ subject of ‘cannabinoids’, as the World Anti-Doping List rather po-facedly calls, them I’d like to talk about our old friend alcohol in the competition environment and the limits imposed by the ‘Banned Substances List’ – http://www.wada-ama.org/en/prohibitedlist.ch2
The list defines the level of acceptable alcohol ‘in competition’ as 0.1g per litre of blood. In contrast the UK drink-driving limit is set at 80mg per 100ml of blood or 0.8g per litre (source – http://www.80mg.org.uk/ddlaw.html). This is 8 times higher than the FAI are saying is acceptable to fly a paraglider in a competition and quite close to the level that your body can, in certain circumstances, produce of its own accord. It will almost certainly mean pilots will be above this limit the morning after drinking more than 4 bottles of beer, especially if anything was drunk after 11.30pm (http://www.80mg.org.uk/fifty.html#UNJUST).
A bit more research on this site shows that the relative chance of having a car accident actually falls up to blood levels of 0.4g/l before rising towards the legal driving limit of 0.8g/l and going up very quickly afterwards. In other words, at small blood alcohol levels accident rates fall by 20% or more, an effect known as the ‘Borkenstein Dip’ which has been annoying anti drink-driving campaigners for decades by thwarting any statistical backing in their attempts to lower the drink-driving limit in various countries. (http://www.80mg.org.uk/danger.html)
So, in the UK, an extremely risk averse and litigious country run by a heavy handed, nanny state government who seem to be hell bent on stopping their own population from having any fun or freedom whatsoever (it’s why I don’t live there anymore), you are allowed to climb into a vehicle up to 3.5 tonnes, strap your kids in the back and your elderly mother in the front and drive with up to 0.8g of alcohol per litre of blood. Does anybody seriously believe that if there was the slightest, tiniest, most infinitesimal increase of statistical risk of an accident that this would be permitted to continue?
So where did the figure of 0.1g per litre that the Banned List stipulates come from? Excluding tin pot Eastern European countries who set limits to nearly zero so their corrupt cops can legally rob you when they stop you, this is eight times lower than the level many governments consider safe to drive a car and half the level the US Federal Aviation Authority deems is acceptable for commercial airline pilots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content). Is flying a paraglider really that tricky? Is the limit set to try and make the usually scruffy and hard-partying paraglider community more presentable to all the ‘worthies’ who will turn up at a major comp? Perhaps the boring, non-drinking countries imposed it so they could find another way of excluding the hard partying nations? (I’m not going to say who the boring ones are as I’ll get ostracised and have my glider trodden on at launch but let’s just say that cuckoo clocks, sausages and cheese with holes in feature significantly in their economic outputs)
Here’s my personal take on what happened, and it is in no way backed up by anything as annoyingly boring as evidence.
THE SCENE – FAI Plenary Meeting, somewhere warm, exotic and expensive.
CHAIRMAN – (wearily as he knows what is coming) – Now we come on to the subject of blood alcohol levels, input from the floor, please!
DELEGATE ONE – (jumping up and waving his order paper so excitedly he looks as though he’s about to wet himself) – Mr Chairman, Conference, Fellow Delegates (he gushes). Our country does not think alcohol and sport should go together. It is our duty to set a good example to the children of the world. We propose a limit in line with the drink-driving limit in most countries at 0.8 grammes per litre of blood. (Satisfied he sits down and beams to himself)
DELEGATE TWO – (with self-satisfied and smug grin) – Mr Chairman, our country is outraged by this proposal! The children of the world should look up to our athletes. They should be role models! WE propose a limit of 0.2g/litre – the same as commercial airline pilots. THIS is a good example!!!! (sits down to rapturous applause)
DELEGATE THREE – (sensing his moment has come) – Mr Chairman. I and my country are flabbergasted. That Delegates One and Two could even suggest that alcohol and paragliding are compatible is a travesty of their positions of authority. WE, the farsighted and wise country at this plenary meeting, propose nothing short of a TOTAL BAN!!!!!! (the meeting erupts into cheering). I applaud this proposal to conference!!!!! (he sits down, basking in the glory of the moment and waving to supporters)
FAI MEDICAL DOCTOR – (rising to her feet and coughing in an embarrassed manner) – Delegates, there is a small problem with this. The body makes alcohol on its own so a zero tolerance policy is unworkable (murmurs of irritation from the delegates). Some individuals make quite significant amounts having never touched a drop… (she sheepishly sits down again to a stunned and silent plenary meeting)
DELEGATES ONE, TWO AND THREE – (all rising simultaneously and waving order papers frantically) – Mr Chairman! (they chorus) we all propose the lowest level medically possible!!!! 0.1g,! 0.1!, 0.1!, 0.1! (the crowd take up the chant) 0.1! 0.1!
CHAIRMAN (shouting irritably) – Somebody get these clowns to sit down! 0.1grams per litre it is! Let it be written in the statute books! Order, order!
Outside the meeting pilots (who have not been allowed in to witness proceedings) hear the news and begin making ‘what the hell do they think they’re doing’ faces to each other. One tries to enter to talk some sense into delegates but a burly security guard ejects him roughly onto the pavement… A passing dog urinates on the unfortunate fellow before he can get up… Shrugging and shaking their heads they all decide to go and get drunk to see if it will make them feel better…
Etcetera, etcetera…
And that’s how I reckon it all came about. More or less, anyway. Ask your FAI delegate to see how wide of the mark I am…
Anyone fancy a pint?
Mark H
