I disagree. Most drugs on the list (maybe even all?) will increase physical performance across the board for all physical activity. Testosterone will bump up muscle production whether you're swimming, running, cycling, lifting, skiing, or whatever.
This is just more evidence that Bridge doesn't belong in the Olympics, IMO.
Example, there are banned drugs the open up the airways. Now if you're doing an endurance event then it is probably performance enhancing, if you're a curler or a diver, not so much.
Then there are in between sports (that rely on skill as much as or more than physical strength) do you want a blanket ban on a drug some people may legitimately use just to prevent some one gaining an advantage? I would say possibly, but it should be evidence based, it shouldn't be done lightly.
Further the drug testing regime isn't some casual, hand in a urine sample with your entry form. Its making yourself available at set times, just in case some one tests you, and then it's peeing in a cup in front of them.
Good question. I believe that whilst there are a few drugs that have different rules for different sports, in general it is easier to just have the same rules for all sports. It's possibly this doesn't make sense with regard to "mind-sports" like Bridge; there's probably some politics involved.
Back in 2004, I remember drugs were broken down into categories and almost all categories were either blanket banned, allowed out of competition but not in competition, or allowed. Very few categories (possibly only beta-blockers?) had a more complex classification. While that was 15 years ago, I think the system is still similar.
Do you have any special insights into the process?
Naively, I would hope that the Bridge governing body would get the stakeholders together with medical experts to come together to decide on a sensible list. That doesn't seem to be the case, I'm guessing it's (lack of) money?
This is just more evidence that Bridge doesn't belong in the Olympics, IMO.