That's a great point. It should be a graduated scale. Ephedrine (ephedra, ma huang-same drug, different names), should be banned, and should carry a suspension, but it in no way enhances your performance the same way that steroids do. It's also a lot stronger than a cup of coffee. Think more like 2 pots of coffee, at once, without the weight/discomfort of the liquid. It's energy. The Red Bull analogy is closer, because they use Guarana, which is similar in that they're both plants. Ephedrine deaths are caused by OD's, severe OD's, but you get the energy boost from 25 mg, but tolerances go up quickly, which is why the overdoses come. I know a lot about this drug, because I am asthmatic, and it's a natural asthma drug, from the ma huang plant/herb. I was livid when it was banned, because I went from a $3.00 a month OTC drug to manage my asthma as a beta 2 antagonist, which I had to use far less frequently, to a $15/ month chemical and prescription.As for competative advantage. It helps keep you from getting winded, and recover quicker from exertion. It doesn't make you faster, or stronger. Pseudoephedrine, the lab created version that is no where near as effective, fits in the same category though. As does cocaine and amphetamines. They give energy, and a little energy advantage, but not the huge strength, speed and durability advantage that HGH and the anabolic steroids do. Same with drugs like Pot, barbituates (downers-painkillers), and other drugs that are banned, but clearly give you no competative advantage. Why does the NFL test for them? Why do they care? I guess there is a competative disadvantage argument, but I don't buy it. Don't worry about crap that doesn't matter, and focus on the crap that does!!! Why cares if Ricky Williams likes to get high and do Yoga? It doesn't give him a competative advantage. You shouldn't suspend him for lifestyle choices. Yes, it's illegal, but you didn't suspend Patrick Buchanon for soliciting prositutes the night before the Superbowl. Testing for morality, just because you can, is idiotic. Test for things that matter, and dole out punishment that is fitting. Somebody mentioned that the players union is open to stronger testing. I don't think either side is. They both like it the way it is. They players get to continue using, the owners get to pretend they have a policy attempting to control it. Both have the best of both worlds. The shroud of secrecy of the program is also a problem for me. How many tests do players fail, and win on appeal, never get suspended, that we never hear about? Remember, we only hear about the test, after the appeal is lost, at the point of suspension, and after the player has already failed one random test, and been place in the 'testing program'. The 4 game is for a second failed test. A second hard confirmed failed test.
