If you want to create role models out of racing car drivers you need to understand how those rolemodels are made. They are and created by people who do that kind of thing for living (pr and brand management). Using leading sporting figures as role models is hugely dangerous because it is completely on/off polarized culture of winning or failing. There is no grey area in between those two areas where the lives of normal people happen. This means that kids either see guys who win everything and are perfect (senna) or failures (montagny).
Fact is that kind of approach does not prevent the bad things from happening. All it does it stigmatizes those people who end up doing drugs (once, many times or becoming drug addicts). It teaches the lesson that you should hide your problems because look at these perfect people. They have no problems. You talk about societal norms that should be enforced with heavy handed policies while you do not clearly understand that such heavy handed policies do not make the society better. The whole thing about drugs has been so gravely mismanaged during the last 60 years that all those societal norms you speak about are based on false information, huge exaggerations and only cause more harm than good.
Montagny lost his career, takes big financial hit, his team and sponsors get pulled into this. Where is the good things that happen here? There aren't any. This kind of drug policy only creates suffering. We know, we know from scientific evidence that you can't fight drugs with this kind of policy. We need drug policy in sports that is based on facts and common sense. Not based on scary childrens stories just because someone still thinks children believe these things. They don't.
I get what you're saying but it's not about the drug policy itself or creating role models out of celebrities, race car drivers, etc. It's not even about the individual. It's about the organization's reputation. The acts of an individual, whether on company time or personal time, reflect on the company. We know it's Business 101 that nothing is more important than an organization's reputation as a damaged reputation leads to a failed business.
In example, let's say you have to undergo a major surgery and it's a life or death kind of surgery in that if everything doesn't go perfect, you're dead. Now, imagine the surgeon operating on you does cocaine or some other drug in which the frequency of use you are unaware of. Would you feel comfortable, knowing your life relies on the surgeon's judgment, allowing him to operate on you he being a cocaine user, occasional or otherwise, not knowing when the last time he used? I doubt you would. It's why companies have a drug and background test prior to hire policy.
If that surgeon performs the surgery, and is in any way impaired and you die,your family would sue the hospital, the surgeon would lose his job and likely his credentials, and the reputation of the hospital tarnished not considering the amount of money they're going to have to payout in a wrongful death lawsuit.
I agree you can't prevent bad things from happening always but to allow someone to operate heavy machinery or operate a vehicle that can easily endanger or take their own life or the lives of others knowing they have been or are under the influence of a substance that would impair their judgment cries lawsuit. It's just not a risk most organizations are willing to take considering the costs to keep the organization afloat alone.
Fact is, whether it's a bank, large company, or motor sports each organization is going to protect their interests and reputation by implementing drug use, sexual harassment, and other behavioral policies because at the end of the day, they'll end up being blamed for not doing enough to prevent said bad thing(s). This is why the standard(s) exists; not so that those abiding by that standard become role models for some kid. That's not even a thought by these organizations when they create these policies.I'd bet it's the last thing on their mind.
I don't think seeing a sportsman as a role model is a bad thing no more than seeing a firefighter as one. At the end of the day they're human and most will admit they've made mistakes throughout their life if you were to ask them. I've never heard any celebrity or public figure say how perfect their life or career has been. Most will say how tough it was starting from the bottom, or how poor they were, or the things they had to endure to get to where they are today. We certainly see how they have more financial problems and other issues than we common folk do so I don't think the message being sent is hide your problems.
That's likely a pride or self-esteem issue for a person to think that's the message being passed. Someone who looks at a model on the cover of a magazine and is either envious or desirous to look like them likely has a self-esteem problem. I think what hasn't been clearly defined is the difference between seeing a person as a role model and idolization. Idolization happens more often than not but we fail, as a society, to differentiate between the two. Idolization generally entails the person or thing being idolized is the standard, whereas a role model is an example in abiding by some standard set.
Above all, there has to be rules, laws, etc of which science would agree. The degree to which those rules or laws are set based on some action or inaction can only be determined by those making the rule or law and we have the choice of abiding by it or not and suffering the consequences. We can't always choose the consequences but we can certainly choose our actions.
...
