A dissenting opinion

I have taken a week to collect my thoughts on the drug testing issue in NASCAR. Before I begin my rant, I must remind the reader that the opinion expressed here does not neccessarily reflect the opinion of all or any of the associate editors at NASCAR Bloggers FT Digest. It is soley my own. I do not advocate the use of drugs in any manner in any sport, professional or amateur.

My first thought is “what has become of the presumption ‘innocence until proven guilty?’”Any mandantory drug testing is based on the presumption of “guilty until proven innocent.”
Testing a person for drugs without probable cause is the equivalent of giving a person a ticket for jaywalking if he happens to be walking down the sidewalk. The pedestrian hasn’t crossed the street illegally, but he could, if he wanted to, so just fine him for something he didn’t do, but may intend to. A driver in NASCAR may have never, in his or her entire life, used substances that would impair his reactions, attention, or abilities to compete in a race, but because we are talking about a living, breathing, human being, there is always the possibility that the person could use drugs.



Granted, the laws against search and seizure without probable cause are only to protect the citizens of this country from the government, and do not apply to businesses and organizations such as NASCAR, but one would think that the presumption of innocence is more important to the state of freedom and well-being, than the paranoid presumption that everybody is doing something wrong, but just hasn’t been caught yet.

The point has often been made that if you are doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about, but that point is made without considering the psychological effect of not being trusted to have a basic knowledge of right and wrong. There is something rebellious in human nature that suggests, “if they think I am doing something wrong, I may as well do something wrong.”

That is not to say that one would react to the accusation of substance abuse by using illicit substances, but one may react by, for instance, running another car into the wall under the auspices of retaliation. Most of us have experienced the feeling of being accused of something that we haven’t done or ever had any intention of doing. It is not a good feeling; in fact, it is an emotionally painful feeling. We all want to be trusted.

The drivers in NASCAR are professionals. Unless they are caught in the emotional heat of the moment after a wreck, they do exercise immaculate personal responsibility. It is not only a matter of being competitive to them, but a matter of self-preservation. If a driver likes to drink beer, for example, he will make it a point to forego beer, beginning Wednesday night, and begin the process of hydrating and working out for the race Sunday. If the driver did not practice this regiman, he would undoubtably get sick, or lose the required attention skills it takes to race competively and safely. That is what personal responsibility is all about.

NASCAR’s present policy of testing only when there is probable cause isn’t only fair, it is safe. Shane Hmeil was caught under that policy, and Tim Richmond, though he had actually stopped using the drugs neccessary to prolong his life, was banned from racing because he was physically unable to race safely, as a result of NASCAR’s probable cause policy.

Tyler Walker and Aaron Fyke seemed to have slipped through the cracks of this policy, because they were caught by the police, and not by NASCAR. But they were caught, and were taken out of the mix before their drug use resulted in tragedy on the track. It will never be proven that either one of them was under the influence of an illicit substance while they were racing.

You could argue that Fyke said that he did take heroin on the same day he raced last year, when he finished in the top ten of a truck race. Yes he said it, but if he had actually done it, he would have been caught. If you have ever been around a heroin addict, you would know what I mean. If he wasn’t nodding off, his speech would have been slurred, his eyes would have been darting constantly, and his stride would have been unsteady, as if he were drunk. If he were allowed to climb, exhibiting those symptoms, into the racecar, he would have fallen on his butt trying to climb in through the window. He would not have made it past the first turn, much less finish in the top ten. Even if he were not under the influence, and was going through withdrawal, he would have been sweating much more profusely than anyone else around him, he would have been showing visible signs of stomach cramps, and there would have been an unmistakable oder about him, even if he hadn’t defecated in his firesuit because of the loss of control of bodily functions. And no, I am not describing Tony Stewart at Watkins Glen, two years ago–Fyke’s symptoms would have raised a red flag for anyone around him if what he said were true.

And I would rather call one person a liar, from what I know, than accepting what he said as the truth, and therefore having to consider everyone else a liar.

NASCAR’s current policy is not broken, so it doesn’t need to be fixed. However, one thing I would like to see encouraged, because over the counter remedies could also cause judgement problems–even if they sponsor a race or a group of teams–is that if a driver is so sick with the flu or a cold that he has to take medication, he should be replaced for the event. This would also be a matter of personal responsibility, and should be voluntary. Hopefully, that idea will catch on.

Cross posted from NASCAR Bloggers FT Digest, by the author