ORIGINAL: gboulton
ORIGINAL: the-plumber
This troll doesn't merit discussion.
And, you'll note, none of us are discussing the troll...save you.
Really ?
Might I direct you to posts 14 and 22, and request that you note the contributors thereof ?
We ARE discussing the ISSUE (s)he raised. Perhaps some think it's an issue worthy of discussion. Perhaps others (such as myself) think it's interesting merely as an exercise in rhetoric. In either case, it seems to me that it serves nobody to enter a discussion with no contribution beyond "I don't find this discussion to be of value."
Since you appear to need convincing that the thread subject is sheer nonsense . . .
It is not an issue, it has never been an issue, and for the foreseeable future it will remain a non-issue. It is a troll, pure and simple.
Flying toy airplanes is not subject to AMA control, rather it is subject to FAA control. FAA have not as yet opted to exercise any control over the operation of toy airplanes, resulting in no such control being exercised by anyone.
The proposition is likely based on the notion of extending the compulsory drug testing currently in place for pilots engaged in 1:1 aerobatic competition to include pilots of model aircraft flown in international competition. Meaning the guys who make the rules for world class toy airplane events are considering mandating compulsory periodic and random testing of those who play with toy airplanes at FAI sanctioned competitions.
That, BTW, is not news. The proposal is at least a year old.
What is newer is the notion that AMA is an associate member of NAA, and by that association is recognized by FAI as the U.S. aeromodeling body, and as such the people who participate in AMA sanctioned events should be subject to the same anti-doping _madness_ being inflicted on the folks who operate their 'toy airplanes' from >inside< that 'toy airplane', e.g. FAI aerobatic competition pilots of the rider-scale variety.
The troll takes the same tactic as was used by Shrub et al to foist Patriot on the country : Should Americans give up some freedoms to help increase national security ?
That tactic is no more valid when applied to the concept of AMA enforcing anti-doping measures on members, over whom the AMA has absolutely no control or authority to do so.
It is a troll designed to ensnare 'right thinking' toy airplane pilots into arguing for enacting such anti-doping measures when no such measures are needed. Moreover, the troll enlists those same 'right thinking' persons to extoll the values to be realized by the perceived new level of 'safety', with the end result that they themselves are convinced to surrender yet another freedom and chastize those who would argue otherwise.
Worse, it would indeed be a measure of invasion of privacy, one based on the tenet that an organization has the ability to require it's members to prove their innocence, solely because those persons are members of the organization; i.e. because those members _exist_.
I am a person. In my country I have certain inalienable rights. One of those rights is the guarantee that I will not be required to endure unreasonable searches and seizures.
The number of courts which have held that subjecting a citizen to bodily examinations, including drug testing, simply because that citizen exists (e.g. is in a particular place or locale at a given time) is a violation of the guarantee regarding unreasonable searches and seizures.
The notion that implementing drug testing (anti-doping measures, in the FAI litany) will do anything to reduce drug abuse or offer any increased level of safety is ludicrous at best, and does nothing more than illustrate that the proponents of such draconian measures don't know diddly about habitual drug abusers - those abusers always think they won't get caught.
The absolute worst thing about throwing out our protections against unreasonable searches and seizures can be found in the 'case' against Lance Armstrong. Years ago the world bicycle racing Czars gave themselves the authority to subject their competitors to at-will and scheduled drug abuse and anti-doping tests. The 'authority' to do so has resulted in Lance Armstrong being labelled as a drug abuser by French newspapers intending on insuring that the Tour de France be in future won by French cyclists. The 'case' against Armstrong is a fraud and a natural political outgrowth of the lofty intentions of the folks who were willing to toss out freedoms in search of higher levels of safety.
If you support drug testing or anti-doping programs for AMA, I submit that you simply have not bothered to think the process through to it's only logical conclusion.
Given the very nature of club politics, how long do you think you would last as a club member and an AMA member if you manage to win a handful of club competitions ? Not long, I submit. I submit that the very nature of club politics would result in one or more disgruntled club members making accusations against you, accusations that not only do they not have to prove, but accusations against which you would be required to prove your innocence; guilty until proven innocent is the usual term.
BTW, we also have a guarantee against being compelled to self-incriminate. In the movies it's usually referred to as 'taking the fifth', and that protection applies to fluids as well as statements.
Having said all that, I gaze into my newly-calibrated crystal ball and predict that in the near future, AMA members who hold FAI Sporting Licenses will be illegally subjected to the same sort of abuses as was Lance Armstrong, simply because he was there and happened to shatter a handful of world records. AMA members will have to _pay_ for this idiotic drug testing.
It will drive your dues right into the clouds, but it won't affect me at all because my membership card expires when I die. I'm immune to due increases, so I don't really care that a pack of chicken littles may decide to throw out yet another freedom in a vain search of "safety" that can never be achieved.
Lastly, it remains my opinion that the thread subject is a TROLL. You've got a lot of work ahead of you trying to prove my opinion less valid than yours.
Howzzat for >discussion<, bub ?