Topic: News: Norik Vardanian busted for marijuana

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

There are consequences to your actions.  We are saying do not use marijuana if you want to lift for the United States.  That is your choice.  Use it, accept the risk that comes with that, or not.

What if the fine were $100,000? Would that change anything? A million? Ten million? What if it were a year in private jail? Death penalty?

What if the sacred rule were against homosexuals competing for fear of blood borne pathogen transmission via the bar? Or that Jews aren't allowed to lift? Is the justness of the rule truly irrelevant, or is it just irrelevant for this rule?

Just following your principle through different situations....

[Mike Wittmer]

There are consequences to your actions.  We are saying do not use marijuana if you want to lift for the United States.  That is your choice.  Use it, accept the risk that comes with that, or not.

What if the fine were $100,000? Would that change anything? A million? Ten million? What if it were a year in private jail? Death penalty?

What if the sacred rule were against homosexuals competing for fear of blood borne pathogen transmission via the bar? Or that Jews aren't allowed to lift? Is the justness of the rule truly irrelevant, or is it just irrelevant for this rule?

Just following your principle through different situations....

No, same thing, I would not smoke pot and compete.  The suspension would be enough deterrent for me.  No need to go as high as a $1 million.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Mike,

I'm afraid we are not understanding each other. I am abstracting from this situation and speaking of the policy and the principles behind it. I thought you believe the policy will be consistent regardless of the substance used or the business situation (ie., paying it getting a lifter active who helps earns Olympic slots). You say, "No need to go as high as a $1 million," but you have ceded that choice to the arbitrary whim of an external power, for a rule you agree is stupid so I just don't understand your meaning. So I ask you, is the justness of the rule irrelevant to the USAW policy? Is not an arbitrary fine not known in advance of its violation unjust? Is the business interest of the USAW secondary to the moral lessen it is trying to teach or is this purely the right financial choice to further long term performance in your opinion? Obviously, I believe the justness is relevant, post de fact fines are unjust and that business, medals, should be the long-term priority. I also believe that is best accomplished by the USAW standing with and supporting its best talent as long as they are producing and even potentially farther if it served as incentive for recruitment and retention.

Peace

[Mike Wittmer]

Mike,

I'm afraid we are not understanding each other. I am abstracting from this situation and speaking of the policy and the principles behind it. I thought you believe the policy will be consistent regardless of the substance used or the business situation (ie., paying it getting a lifter active who helps earns Olympic slots). You say, "No need to go as high as a $1 million," but you have ceded that choice to the arbitrary whim of an external power, for a rule you agree is stupid so I just don't understand your meaning. So I ask you, is the justness of the rule irrelevant to the USAW policy? Is not an arbitrary fine not known in advance of its violation unjust? Is the business interest of the USAW secondary to the moral lessen it is trying to teach or is this purely the right financial choice to further long term performance in your opinion? Obviously, I believe the justness is relevant, post de fact fines are unjust and that business, medals, should be the long-term priority. I also believe that is best accomplished by the USAW standing with and supporting its best talent as long as they are producing and even potentially farther if it served as incentive for recruitment and retention.

Peace

"is the justness of the rule irrelevant to the USAW policy"

Yes, at least to me.  As I mentioned, we have to pay it regardless.

"Is not an arbitrary fine not known in advance of its violation unjust?"

Perhaps, but we still have to pay it.

"Is the business interest of the USAW secondary to the moral lessen it is trying to teach or is this purely the right financial choice to further long term performance in your opinion?"

The lesson is, "don't smoke dope, if you get caught, you will be suspended and it will cost you money."

Mike

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

The lesson is, "don't smoke dope, if you get caught, you will be suspended and it will cost you money."

Alright Mike. There is no dispute on the suspension I think, only the arbitrary, post-de-facto nature of the fine. It was a good discussion and I think we have both laid out our viewpoints. I enjoyed it.

Peace

[michael cooley]

Mike,

I'm afraid we are not understanding each other. I am abstracting from this situation and speaking of the policy and the principles behind it. I thought you believe the policy will be consistent regardless of the substance used or the business situation (ie., paying it getting a lifter active who helps earns Olympic slots). You say, "No need to go as high as a $1 million," but you have ceded that choice to the arbitrary whim of an external power, for a rule you agree is stupid so I just don't understand your meaning. So I ask you, is the justness of the rule irrelevant to the USAW policy? Is not an arbitrary fine not known in advance of its violation unjust? Is the business interest of the USAW secondary to the moral lessen it is trying to teach or is this purely the right financial choice to further long term performance in your opinion? Obviously, I believe the justness is relevant, post de fact fines are unjust and that business, medals, should be the long-term priority. I also believe that is best accomplished by the USAW standing with and supporting its best talent as long as they are producing and even potentially farther if it served as incentive for recruitment and retention.

Peace

Maybe I'm missing it, but how was this an ex post fine?  Didn't Mike Cook post the IWF rule (12.3.2) earlier that pegs the fine for a postive test at $5,000?  Weren't the rules clearly stated in advance?  If I understand correctly, your point is that the rule is immoral (based on the "non-aggression principle") because it imposes rules on Norik.  In a political context, for example, if you don't pay your taxes you get in trouble.  There's no "opting out" of the overall system.  That's what makes it "immoral", the citizen has no choice but to be subjected to the will of the state.  While I don't agree with the argument, I get it.   

Here, there's an obvious "opt out" -- don't compete.  If Norik preferred to lift big weights for his own enjoyment and smoke pot while doing it, he can (at least as far as the IWF is concerned).  He just has to do it by himself, and he can't compete in IWF-sanctioned meets.  If Norik wants to lift big weights in international meets and compete for medals, records, etc., he has to abide by the rules established by the IWF.  If Norik is a voluntary participant in organized weightlifting (which I presume he is), and if the rules are spelled out, how can it be "immoral" under your theory?

Don't get me wrong - I don't want him to "opt out."  He's a tremendous lifter with significant potential.  But to call this an immoral misses the point.  Norik has a choice. 

mpc

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Michael, whether or not a rule is public or private does not affect its morality, only its legality and the extent of the injustice involved. It is still aggression, just as using a performance enhancer is an indirect aggression against one's competitors. Since marijuana is not banned for being performance enhancing but for political reasons (ie., snowboarding gold medal fiasco), it is aggression against the innocent, those who have harmed no one, unlike the proper retaliation for aggression that a steroid positive would represent. If the rule *was* laid out as a $5,000 minimum fine ahead of time then it would not be post de facto, though is still immoral aggression in my view. My understanding was that the fine system was arbitrary and perhaps that was mistaken. If so, I appreciate the correction.

[Andy Dick]

First let me start by saying this is a great post I love it!

Unjust rules require non-compliance and non-cooperation from the just. There are always choices. I've been offering one in particular for many years now.

Except it is not that easy because down the road in the dealer, growing, cultivating, packaging process others get exploited in an unjust immoral way far exceeding saying you cannot use the drug.  Allowing its use allows those who are exploiting others to continue to do so.

Impossible. The ends do not justify the means. The means are the ends. You can not accomplish good (reforming drug testing) by doing evil (applying immoral, non-objective, post de facto rules.) Only more problems can result from this policy.

Except by paying the fine for Norik and not fixing the over arching problem you are in essence funding the problem you are seeking to fight.  The fine as already been applied and enacted, deal with the fact that Norik broke the rule in place and fight to get the rule eliminated instead of always stepping in to cover lifters with funds we already short.  Otherwise "immoral" rule stays in place and stays strong.  Going out and smoking pot which the lifter knows is a banned substance just to fight the system does not work.  Say only more problems can result from this policy and I say then fight to get rid of it altogether not just step in and cover the offender's butts.  He knew the rules and was stupid not to follow them or be smart enough to quit smoking with enough time to get it out of his system.  The elite lifters know how do it is right with anabolics he cant figure out how to do it with pot?  So I say instead of sneaking around the system eliminate it for a better one.