Rob, Rambling - A lot of things interest me...

Writing about Brass Eye a few minutes ago reminded me of this clip, which I just showed to the girlfriend in order to educate her about the brilliance of Brass Eye. It’s from the Drugs episode, and it shows how celebrities, and even a freakin’ Member of Parliament can be duped into doing material for an anti-drug campaigns.

Cake, you see, is a “made-up drug”. This didn’t stop the great and good from preaching to us about its dangers and effects, and the MP even went so far as to bring it up in Parliament! Epic win.

Oh, and this is nothing when compared to the similar tactic used in the Paedophile episode, which got one celebrity to state to camera that the average paedophile has more DNA in common “with a crab, than with you or I”. Utter, utter genius.

Sabine posted a link to a great story on Wired about the placebo effect in medicine, and its effect on Big Pharma’s R&D in recent years.

It reminded me of how Ben Goldacre in Bad Science explained the placebo effect beautifully, and most importantly told how to test for it efficiently and correctly. This, evidently, is something that pharmaceutical companies have been loathe to do (or to admit to doing, at least) for many years.

The most troubling part for me of the article was the infographic on page 3, including the above snippet. Seriously, branding accentuates the placebo effect? Good God we’re a society/generation of consumers.

EDIT: I should title this post “If Carlsberg made placebos…”

Sabine posted a link to a great story on Wired about the placebo effect in medicine, and its effect on Big Pharma’s R&D in recent years.

It reminded me of how Ben Goldacre in Bad Science explained the placebo effect beautifully, and most importantly told how to test for it efficiently and correctly. This, evidently, is something that pharmaceutical companies have been loathe to do (or to admit to doing, at least) for many years.

The most troubling part for me of the article was the infographic on page 3, including the above snippet. Seriously, branding accentuates the placebo effect? Good God we’re a society/generation of consumers.

EDIT: I should title this post “If Carlsberg made placebos…”

The Daily Mail amuses me sometimes. Usually it irritates me beyond belief, but sometimes it’s so incredulous that I can’t help but find it funny.

Take this story, for example, which details some made-up anger about the BBC hiring ex-tennis player Martina Hingis as one of their celebs on the new series of Strictly Come Dancing (the forerunner of Dancing With The Stars in the US).

The Daily Mail and their handily available angry commentators Mediawatch UK are up in arms because Hingis was forced to quit tennis for a second time last year after a positive test for cocaine. She denies it, obviously, but the ITF still banned her for two years.

My issue isn’t with that.

It’s the way that another celeb in this year’s line-up is being given a free pass, and has been for the last few years by the media.

Scroll down to the bottom of the article and look at the group photo. See the guy on the left?

That’s ex-cricketer Phil Tufnell. He has a criminal conviction for assaulting his then wife. Not just an accusation or a rumour. A full on, court of law guilty judgment against him.

How the fuck is maybe using cocaine worse than assaulting someone?!?! The Daily Mail’s morals (as ever) are sorely misguided on this one.

The UK government is going to make a number of “party drugs” illegal by the end of this year, ostensibly in a bit of a knee-jerk reactions to a couple of deaths after the consumption of these drugs. The drugs are currently sold openly in the UK, and over the internet, but from next year possession with intent to supply will carry a maximum jail sentence of 14 years, with mere possession punishable by up to five years in prison.

Already, I’ve seen accusations of nanny state-ism, and as usual references are made to the existing legal death aids of alcohol and cigarettes.

My issue, however, is with the reasoning that making something illegal will reduce the number of deaths from it. I say that, because today it was announced that deaths from illegal drugs rose 8% year-on-year, including a 20% rise in cocaine-related deaths.

Now cocaine has been illegal since forever. So that policy is working, then…

As an afterthought to that photo concerning the Tour de France, I’m delighted to say that this year’s Tour was the cleanest for many, many years. I wrote last year a few times about the tainting of the sport through drug use, and it’s great to see that the sport has cleaned up its act.

This truly was a great Tour de France, and I especially liked having the penultimate stage finishing with a massive climb, to really test the mettle of the leading bunch. The route this year was pretty solid, taking in a good few mountain stages, but also giving the sprinters stages to aim at too. And starting with a time trial that involved a hefty climb was a fantastic idea. That really sorted the men from the boys, straight from the off.

Hopefully they’ll be back to London for the prologue in a few years time; the 2010 Tour starts in Rotterdam next July, and I’m already looking forward to it.

One thing I wished the film went into a bit more was the fact that beyond diabetes the U.S. is seeing more cases of autism, ADD, allergies and depression in children, and what we eat can be linked to such problems.

Erin has written a great review of the film Food Inc, which seemingly takes the book Fast Food Nation to another level in terms of uncovering the hows and whys of our fast food diet.

But, and I genuinely hate to be this guy, I have to say that I found the above paragraph to be a little misleading. I’m a firm believer in the fact that the upswing in diagnoses of the above diseases/conditions is only because of a result in the increase of testing for such disorders.

50 years ago, there was no such thing as ADD, or mild dyslexia. But now we have these titles for them, and accommodate them accordingly. I don’t want to say that these conditions don’t exist, but I genuinely feel that we use them too much as an excuse nowadays.

Your kid is unruly and doesn’t listen to your instructions? He must have ADD. We’ve lost the ability, or, more likely, the willingness to label an individual as a “bad kid” and thus belittle his parents to boot. Instead, we prescribe shit like Ritalin and give the child more leeway in his actions.

And let’s be honest, do we know anything about the long-term effects of these behavioural drugs? Do we fuck. We’re basically doing a long-term experiment on unwitting and unconsenting participants. I struggle to see a morality in that.

When did we lose this method of social diagnosis? It’s as if we want to excuse every action as mere genetics or inevitable. We no longer want to say that people are bad parents, even though we know instinctively that they must be.

Look at things from a solely statistical viewpoint: 49.9% of parents are going to be “bad parents” in terms of the median. Yes, I’m simplifying massively, and ignoring the whole concept of orphans and so forth, but my point remains the same:

If we’re aiming for a particular threshold of behaviour amongst kids, then we have to admit that some parents are incapable of achieving that level in their children. But we shouldn’t be prescribing drugs to overcome that “problem”. We should be educating both the parents and children in an effort to improve their relationships and thus the kids’ behaviour.

Drugs are not the answer.

[To be clear, I’m not getting at Erin here. It’s just that her paragraph has got me thinking on the subject.]


Reblogged from: brieflynoted
Originally posted on: briefly noted

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I’m going to hark back to the Tour de France and drugs again. Yet another couple of riders have now tested positive and had their results removed from this year’s race.

Unfortunately, they were both stage winners, bringing the total number of stages won by drug cheats in this year’s Tour to five. Riccardo Ricco was banned during the race while still in possession of the King of the Mountains jersey and after having won a couple of stages.

As I said of Ricco at the time, “he has denied the glory of a stage win to a legitimate competitor.”

Winning a stage of the greatest cycling road race is pretty much the highlight of any competitive cyclist’s career, save for winning the whole Tour itself. And these drug cheats have not only cheated their way to victory, but have prevented legitimate competitors from experiencing that high. It’s all well and good being awarded a stage victory 3 months later, but it’s not the same as standing on that podium.

Drug cheats should be banned from all sport, for life. It’s the only way.

I’ve posted a fair bit in the last month or so about drug use in sport (1, 2, 3, 4), and it got me thinking about why I am so vehemently anti-drugs in this sense, even to the point of being ashamed of a gold medal winner from my own country.

It’s because I invest so much in watching sport. Not financially, but emotionally. I get so involved with watching every sport (especially when it’s my team or country competing) that to know it could be tainted would crush me.

The sheer enjoyment factor of watching sport is knowing that anything could happen. Yes, the better team will win 9 times out of 10, but that single occasion when the underdogs win makes it unpredictable and gloriously enthralling.

Having a level playing field is one of the most important aspects of sport. If someone is cheating, and that’s what drug use is, then it is patently unfair, and removes any notion of a sporting contest. And it’s the contest we pay to see. Yes, it’s great when your team is involved, as you feel an even deeper emotional connection, but just to watch a match between two teams, or individuals competing against each other, is to appreciate sport for what it is: a contest.

It’s for the same reason that I detest any rigging of matches, like Hansie Cronje did in cricket at the end of the 90s. That also removes the element of fairness from the game, which in turn takes away the lustre of the contest.

What I’m trying to say is that I love sport, and probably always will. The only thing which would turn me off is persistent cheating, especially if the authorities turn a blind eye to it. Thankfully, most sports bodies seem to be getting their houses in order on the drugs front, which is the most obvious form of cheating.

Next year, I hope to watch events like the Tour de France and the athletics World Championships, and not have that nagging question in my head: “Are they clean?”

So we got our first gold medal in the Athletics today, Christine Ohuruogu in the women’s 400m. Hurrah, you would think.

But I’m genuinely disappointed that she’s even there, competing, let alone won the raced and will now be feted as a hero of British athletics.

For those that don’t know, Ohuruogu skipped three out-of-competition drugs tests in 2006, and was banned from all competition for 12 months. She came back in 2007, won the World Championships, and has today added the Olympic title.

I’ve made my feelings on drug use in sport known already on this blog, and it bears repeating here:

My reasoning is that the use of steroids is not like using nitrous in a car. It’s not an instant boost with no long-lasting effects. Steroid use (over many years) actually changes your physiology. It makes your bones stronger, your muscles denser, can increase blood flow and generally make you harder, better, faster, stronger.

And these things don’t instantly go away when you stop using drugs, unlike the effects of nitrous. You remain stronger, with your insides irrevocably altered. So even if you’re clean five years later, you still have the benefits of having used drugs previously.

Ohuruogu did not fail a drugs test, I acknowledge that. She is not in the same position as Dwain Chambers. But skipping drugs tests, especially three is for me as bad as actually failing one. If you miss one through bad luck, forgetfulness or so on, fair enough.

But three?! Sorry, but that’s unacceptable. She fully deserved her ban, and should’ve been treated the same way as any other drug cheat by the British Olympic Association: a lifetime ban on competing in the Olympics.

Through all manner of legal protests, she had her Olympic ban overturned, although she had to serve out her one-year ban from all competitions. Thus she was free to compete today.

This whole Ohuruogu saga has truly tainted the success of the British team in these Olympics for me. We’ve done so well, a lot better than anyone had expected, but now we have a drug cheat as part of our gold-winners.

I’m ashamed, truly ashamed that Christine Ohuruogu was allowed to represent my country in these Olympic Games.

But, I have to say a fantastic well done to the whole cycling team, who picked up another pair of gold medals today, as well as a silver. Tremendous work.

About

Londoner, thinking and writing far too much about far too many random things. Wannabe photo-/videographer of my life. More likely to be found propping up a bar somewhere.

I also write about football.

This mess is powered by Tumblr, on which there are many things I like. You can also ask me anything.

RSS | Archives | Random

Contact

Twitter

Tags

Type: text, photo, photoset, picture, video, audio, link, quote, chat, reblog, question, ask me anything
Style: ranting, random, happy, funny, cynicism, meme, review, rambling, list
Self: self reference, self portrait, self made, self mocking, self flattery, self confidence, introspection, gpoyw
People:
girlfriend, family, sister, parents, friends, relationships, ex, housemates
Happenings: drinking, work, party, bed talk, sleep, sex, travel, holiday
Culture: internet, music, food, twitter, films, books, comedy, tv, news,
Subjects: london, money, media, newspapers, drugs, celebs, politics,
Sport: sport, football, arsenal, rugby, athletics, gym, exercise
Random: dirty old man, swearing,
Meta: tumblr, tumbling about tumbling, tumblr crush, blogging, tumblr people