“The German race organization announced that all professional Ironman applicants must sign a statement saying they’ve never taken performance enhancing drugs at any time during a professional sporting career. Those who didn’t sign could not race.”
“These tactics would be laughed at in any other industry. They fail the written and social contracts upon which we depend.”
Slowman, I’m pretty sure you can’t answer for German law, but I would have to think that in the U.S., such a request would not stand up in a court of law? Is that covered in the written and social contracts comment, or do you think it would have to be tested in court to be established?
“And thirdly, the Code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules.” Pirates of the Caribbean
must sign a statement saying they’ve never taken performance enhancing drugs at any time during a professional sporting career. ]]]
You see parkito, it is really a trick question. WHen I got my job with the FIre Dept. they do a very exhaustive background check, just like a cop would get…One of the questions is “Have you ever in your life, smoked pot or taken illegal drugs?”. Of course 99% of the applicants have tried it at least once, but it is more an IQ test. If you are dumb enough to answer yes, then they don’t want you for two reasons. One, you use/have used drugs, number two and most important, you are too stupid to lie about it…Really kind of turned around if you ask me, but that is the system. They prefer liers to people admitting that they tried pot. Everyone pretty much knows going in that you don’t admit to drugs, being gay, political and religious affilations, and having impure thoughts about farm animals(an actual question). SO we will see who the smart triathletes really are this year, and the honest ones will be the ones racing somewhere else that weekend…
Fire department personel might be the exception to the rule. after all they are looking for smart people to run into burning buildings.
On a more serious note, I could see the argument for employers, particularly civil service related, having to ask that question when every little incident is open to litigation in this country, after the fact, and the prevailing majority attitude that somebody else is always responsible for any bad outcomes. It goes along with the argument in the LR about trying soldiers for decisions made in the heat of battle afterwards in cold, sterile courtrooms.
But, a competition, it seems like a completely different animal. What questions could they ask next?
Did you ever speak badly about your competititors?
Did you ever speak badly about gays?
How much CO2 did you produce last year?
