TSN has a fairly in-depth story up about the Jarret Lukin suspension. The basic facts are that Lukin, who played for the University of Calgary, was drug tested by the Candian Centre for Ethics in Sport following a game on November 3, 2006. He tested positive for cocaine, a substance prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency. He got a hearing, was unable to meet any of the tests required to avoid a suspension and got suspended.

It’s hard to express just how indefensible I think this is, from a number of different angles. First of all, cocaine isn’t a performance enhacing substance. I’ve done some googling on this (yeah, now I’m an expert) and, based on what the experts I’ve come up with have said, it isn’t going to help players perform any better. Second, the whole concept of drug testing without any cause is incredibly intrusive. If you’re going to be engaging that sort of testing, the drug testing should be limited to drugs that might actually give a player an edge. I’d imagine that some people would come up with moral arguments against the use of cocaine but I see those arguments as being pretty much irrelevant in this instance. If you accept that something as intrusive as drug testing requires a pretty significant justification, and that moral reasons aren’t accepted generally as a reason to test people for drug use, you can’t say “Well, we’ve already got the pee in a cup, so we might as well check for some other things.” Third, I think that CIS needs to ask itself what exactly it’s trying to accomplish here. What broader objective is served by accepting Dick Pound’s rules and banning Lukin for two years? How do they justify this? If you accept that it’s not performance enhancing, the CIS is engaging in some pretty selective moral judgments of their athletes. If you accept that the CIS and university sport has some sort of purpose beyond facilitating high level athletic competition, it should be obvious that there might be other ways to have dealt with this that didn’t involve banning Lukin from competition for two years. I took a look at the University of Calgary counselling page and they apparently provide services for people with drug issues. Given that there aren’t any performance issues here, would not a referral of Lukin to those services have been more appropriate?

The fact that this is basically a moral judgment is really underlined if you look at the decision of the arbitrator. There’s an allusion to the fact that suspensions for positive tests for marijuana result in a less lengthy suspension, something that this story about University of Alberta Golden Bears forward Doug Auchenberg would seem to confirm. How can marijuana be recognized as a recreational drug without performance enhancing benefits while cocaine isn’t? I don’t think that the CIS should be suspending people (or even testing them) for marijuana but this is at least a ray of common sense.

All in all, this is just a sad story. Lukin, a guy who was getting a university education and who did something stupid that didn’t enhance his performance, is now playing in the ECHL. It’s another scalp on Dick Pound’s wall, without any purpose being served whatsoever.

Update:  There is an excellent story on naplesnews.com about this.  The commissioner of the WHL, Ron Robison has apparently committed his league to installing a drug policy similar to that of CIS.  Those guys need a union, quickly.  The ECHL doesn’t have a drug testing policy but claims to have the power to suspend a player if they’re found to have had a positive test for an illegal drug.  Those guys need a better union.  My guess is that he’s gone from the ECHL shortly.

There’s a story today in the National Post noting that Rachel Hunter’s son is playing in the Quebec Peewee Tournament. I was surprised to learn that Jarret Stoll isn’t the only hockey player she’s raising.[rimshot]