Two news items caught my attention this week.

Paris Hilton, isn’t she a piece of work? I love that phrase. She does something wrong, in this case druink driving, she ignores the discipline imposed by a Californian Court, she misbehaves again and now she’s going to jail.

What really amazes me is the reaction of Paris and her vapid mother. You might have heard them on TV”

“Judge Sauer is picking on me because I’m famous.”

“The cops stop me all the time to hit on me.”

“It’s my publicist’s fault.”

“My daughter is being made an example of because of who she is.”

“This is destroying a good family.”

Everybody’s fault except their own; a reaction that says everything about why the persistent offending happened in the first place. The Hiltons and many others do not understand harsh discipline can be extremely kind. Jail or no jail, they still won’t understand. They just never get it.

I bet they find a way around the jail time. People like that always do.

Behavior like that begins early. One of my master’s swimmers told me a tale this morning that illustrates the problem beautifully. A supermodel friend was hired recently to model clothes at a twelve year old’s birthday party. The extraordinarily rich Palm Beach party was going well until a gust of wind caught the super model’s gown and exposed a mini and expensive thong. The moment was caught by one of the birthday girl’s male friends. The boy’s mother is now suing the model. No wonder these twelve year olds turn out to be spoilt brats. As I said to my master’s swimmer, “Where I come from we’d pay a little extra for that.”

It’s not only Judge Sauer and supermodels that run into bad behavior. Every swim coach has to deal with parents who are all for discipline until it impacts their dearest. Then it’s time to fire the coach.

But enough of Paris; this week there has also been increased debate about performance enhancing drugs. Before addressing that question however, does anyone know why the IOC tests for social drugs? Unlike Bill Clinton I’ve never puffed a joint; I’ve never even been offered. I recommend my swimmers stay well away. It’s against the law. However I can’t imagine marijuana is performance enhancing. In fact, any swimmer who smokes anything deserves nothing but the dunce cap. Therefore it’s none of the IOC’s business. They don’t test to see if I exceed the speed limit or break anyone of a hundred other laws, so what’s the big deal about smoking all about?

But the drug debate this week was not about that. Website writers seemed to be concerned that the use of drugs is on the rise. They asked whether lenient sentences like that imposed on Ous Mellouli by the Tunisian Swimming Federation, the extra time given to Thorpe and the four positive tests so far in 2007 indicate rough times ahead. There is certainly nothing wrong with the debate. However there is another side to the drug story that is of just as much concern and should be debated; the power of the testing agencies.

New Zealand provides the world with an example of all that can go wrong. Their agency is led by a guy called Graham Steel. He has done a sterling job. He’s linked debating the performance of his Agency with agreeing with drugs – and it’s just not true. Because drugs need to be done away with does not put everything Steel does beyond critical analysis. In his crusade to rid the United States of communists, McCarthy achieved the same status. Criticize him or his methods and by definition, you were a communist. The New Zealand Drug Agency has created a lesser but similar environment of fear among sporting people. Don’t criticize the Agency or you will become known as a user and you will be targeted for testing at every opportunity. The fears may not even be true. They are nevertheless just as effective because they are believed to be true.

All this is especially true when the evidence suggests the Agency is not doing its job properly. Mistakes, errors, omissions and you begin to wonder whether the cure is turning out to be worse than the problem.

What makes this really bad is a recent amendment to the New Zealand Agency’s founding Act. Initially the Agency was required to adhere to a set of testing rules, similar to the traffic police. If the Agency did not comply with the rules it was grounds for having the test nullified. The New Zealand Agency is not one to have its performance examined in this way so it managed to get an amendment that says, even if the rules are broken the test will still stand unless the athlete can prove damage occurred. McCarthy would have loved it.

You might as well not have a testing procedure at all. The average athlete has no chance of proving damage, which means the Agency can do what it likes – leave samples on airport shelves for a month, reopen sample bags, change sample numbers, anything. And with its track record you wouldn’t bet it won’t.

From what I have observed the US has avoided the excesses of New Zealand. Beware though; when you are debating getting tough on the drug cheats, don’t create an out-of-control agency whose behavior may be worse than the original problem. Power corrupts and absolute power …. and you know the rest.