[Closed] Drug cheats and lifetime bans.

Lifetime ban for all drug cheats, except cyclists obviously.

TBh the solution's simple- DRUG OLYMPICS. I want to see a 6 second hundred metres.

Northwind, if you are going to allow cheating can I do the hundred meters on a motorbike please?

Do they REALLY lose all the extra muscle mass gained when they come off the dope?

I'd guess not, otherwise they wouldn't test out of season.

I am suggesting that a lifetime ban is too harsh, and requires a standard of behaviour from a person doing a job that we would not expect from anyone else.

That's like saying murderers shouldn't get life prison sentences because someone who killed a dog didn't. 🙄

When really all sport is a game with rules and if you don't play by the rules you can't join in. Sports not designed to be inclusive, politically correct etc. It's a test of what you can do [u]within[/u] the rules.

No-one's arguing that phil, it's about what happens if you make a mistake. Society gives you a second chance if you break the rules.

I realise that about second chances. My question is should you get a second chance in sport?

I don't think you should, it's not like any other aspect of life. If you don't want to compete by the rules you can go and start your own olympics where drugs are allowed.

I quite like this quote from Trey Hardee

I don't think there should be a way back. That should be a lifetime ban. I think it should be "once and done" policy. Once you cross that moral boundary then you lose everything the Olympics stand for. It doesn't maybe mean that you are a horrible person and that you should be ostracised by your community, but it should mean that you are never allowed to compete again.

I am suggesting that a lifetime ban is too harsh, and requires a standard of behaviour from a person doing a job that we would not expect from anyone else.

Sorry but there are plenty of things that people in certain professions can do that will result in them losing their job. If I test postive for drugs I will in all likliehood loose my job and be unable to get another one in the industry. If a doctor or a teacher has an inappropriate realtionship with a patient/student then they too will loose their jobs and be unable to continue in their choosen profession. Athletes know the rules and the consequences for breaking them.

What about if those who get banned for life come back with a new identity, would that be OK? I imagine that they would act like reformed characters for a while before slipping back into their old ways.

Northwind - in many ways, you are so correct. As much as I would prefer life time bans etc, perhaps the reality is to allow a complete free for all. Pro sport is riddled with so much drug taking and ambiguity that it is so far from being pure or a level playing field that perhaps we are simply being too niaive to pretend otherwise?

With 24/7 sports and news coverage, there are millions of seals sitting waiting to be thrown the next fish for their consumption. If it comes with a new world record then so much the better.

So why not let the individuals make their own choices. If in the pursuit of glory (sic) they want to riddle their own bodies with drugs then let them live with their own consequences and like the Romans before us the appetite of the baying mob will continue to be satisfied.

Ironically I think we're all agonising over this so much is that two sports I care about most - cycling and athletics - are the two that take testing and sanctions most seriously. And as soon as you take things seriously it all becomes a lot more complex and we move steadily away from moral absolutes and easy outrage. We move into small-print and lawyers and committees and arbitration.

We're dealing with a world that runs a huge spectrum from being a bit crap with keeping the authorities informed of your diary, taking the wrong cough medicine, buying an over the counter 'performance enhancer' (and I don't mean helps you run faster) right through to elaborate institutionalised abuse, with team, doctor and sometimes sponsor collusion. A lot of the people stuck in the mud of controversy are the DIY enthusiasts, the clumsy and the stupid.

And the casual observer tuts and points and laughs and the rest of the sporting world breathes a sigh of relief that the spotlight is elsewhere. And no, I'm not condoning drug abuse. But I do still count myself a Millar fan, he's consistently good to watch and can be relied on for post-race insight that deviates from the PR-approved line.

Where do you draw the line with drugs? Didn't things start in the TdF with riders using brandy etc to help through the required pain levels.

But lets take the case of a Wayne Rooney or a Johnny Wilkinson who is carrying an injury. What is the moral difference between pumping them full of pain killers to allow them to perform for 90 or 80 mins and using a PED?

Stever - understand your comments, but how would you feel seeing Millar on an Olympic podium?

how would you feel seeing Millar on an Olympic podium?

What is the moral difference between pumping them full of pain killers to allow them to perform for 90 or 80 mins and using a PED?

Morally, one is cheating and one isn't.

Legally, one is banned one isn't.

I realise that about second chances. My question is should you get a second chance in sport?
I don't think you should, it's not like any other aspect of life.

Yes, why not?
What do you believe makes sport so unique that you're allowed a second chance if you murder someone, but not if you put a bit too much clen on your steak?

aracer - is that insinuating something?

phil.2 - but why is there a moral distinction? In both cases, medication (?) is being used to allow some to compete when they otherwise couldn't.

Presumably aracer's point was that Millar did play a part in Cav's WC win...

Ok - I see, I thought I had missed something!!

What do you believe makes sport so unique that you're allowed a second chance if you murder someone, but not if you put a bit too much clen on your steak?

I didn't say that. I said you shouldn't be allowed a second chance in sport. I didn't say where I think you should be given a second chance.

I agreed there was times when it is appropriate but to make some sort of case for second chances in sport based on wider society is disingenuous.

why is there a moral distinction?

Why do morals exist at all? Answer that and you can answer your own question. 🙂

ohh, and some pain killers are classed as PED's and banned by WADA. So like other drugs it is based on the affect they have on the human body.

Millar did play a part in Cav's WC win...

I agreed there was times when it is appropriate but to make some sort of case for second chances in sport based on wider society is disingenuous.

I disagree. You (or at least I) can't separate sport from the wider society. The participants are members of society and it's watched by members of the society and thus is part of society's framework. But either way what makes you think that you shouldn't be allowed second chances in sport? I'm not saying you shouldn't, but would like to hear your reasoning as to why sport should be different to other aspects of society.

But either way what makes you think that you shouldn't be allowed second chances in sport?

Essentially at the end of the day all sports are invented games with rules and it's saying these are the rules, stick to them or don't play.

There is nothing to stop anyone starting up a new game/sport where drug taking is excepted, body building is a good example of this.

So why no second chances, simply because I think the greatest deterrent to stop people taking drugs would be having 'no route back' once caught. As it is at the moment it's often worth the risk.

The question becomes shouldn't sport reflect society's approach of rehabilitation?

I think the damage done to society through the lies & cheating of supposed role models is greater than any positives that can be gained from giving them a second chance.

If anything giving them a second chance shows it's often worth the risk of disobeying the rules.

I guess that part comes down to the media and the way drugs scandals are headline news. Whereas with reformers like David Millar the story is never going to be as big.

Thanks for that.
I guess I don't quite agree, possibly because sport has never really been a significant part of my life. But it's always good to hear other people's views.
Cheers!

Where do you draw the line with drugs?

WADA. i have no idea how they decide what is acceptable and not - but i trust they have experts.

I'm in the ban for life camp. Except I'd go a bit further and also ban them from any role in coaching management, promotion or commentary too, for life. Write into every new racers licence that all monies earned in the sport from first appearance are forfeit if a drugs ban is picked up too, and that sponsorship deals have to have similar clause written in. No likey? Go get a proper job.

Edit: forgot about the lifetime ban on setting foot in race venue, stadium or training facility too.

Edit: forgot about the lifetime ban on setting foot in race venue, stadium or training facility too.

😀

Don't take the p, loads of caught dopers still making a living from the sport. If you don't think it's right as a competitor, why have them around at all?

Where do you draw the line with drugs?

WADA. i have no idea how they decide what is acceptable and not - but i trust they have experts.

The problem I have with drugs cheats in sport is the effect on others. Lets say A. Sprinter uses drugs to get to the Olympics and wins the final. He is then caught out, disqualified and the medals redistributed accordingly. All happy and fine. But what about B. Sprinter who didn't even get his moment in the sun due to the fact that he chose the clean route. There's no redress there. They can't rerun the Olympics to allow those who didn't qualify due to cheating bastards a fair crack of the whip.

Pumping a footballer with pain-killers to get through a match is not against the rules. Simple. Certain performance enhancing drugs are. It comes down to the rules. If the rules say don't do it and you do then tough. You know the rules, you know the consequences, you make your choice. Crying about it afterwards is just pointless and immature.

Pumping a footballer with pain-killers to get through a match is not against the rules. Simple. Certain performance enhancing drugs are. It comes down to the rules. If the rules say don't do it and you do then tough. You know the rules, you know the consequences, you make your choice. Crying about it afterwards is just pointless and immature.

The rules are applied inconsistently however. Chambers has been banned from the Olympics but would not be banned in other countries. Other countries have "glossed" over the issue such as the USA. It is also inconsistently applied in the UK and it should be noted that some athletes have never been "caught" taking drugs but have been banned because they have missed tests. I am not making excuses however it is never simple.

I however need a doctor's not to explain that while the asthma drugs I take are illegal and banned on the WADA list, I, in fact, am not doing anything illegal. Or should I not be allowed to compete?
Not all black and white is it?

Chambers has been banned from the Olympics but would not be banned in other countries.

He knew the rules and made his choice. He is banned from the Olympics. He is still probably making a bloody good living from the sport.

As for those who missed tests I believe that they have more than one opportunity. If my employer wants me somewhere at a certain time and I don't show and don't have a good reason for it I can understand them being a little annoyed. If I then do this on numerous occasions then I could expect the disciplinary procedures to be invoked.

Remember a while back a Tennis play from NZ Mark Nielson receiving a 2 year ban for failing a drugs test ... due to his anti-balding treatment.

Guess he was stupid for not having all his meds checked (which seems to be a common occurrence) but should he also receive a life time ban ?

Not everything is black and white.

See, that's a bit different, innit? He weren't taking something to enhance his performance, was he (well, maybe his follicle performance)?

Kolo Toure apparently took some diet pills his wife had, which was bloody stupid really. But he weren't really trying to gain a performance advantage, just lose some weight! The silly sod.

He received and served a six-month ban, and no doubt was fined by his club. Is he a 'cheat'? Nope, just naive and foolish.

Millar and Chambers knowingly and deliberately took performance enhancing substances they knew were banned under the rules of their sports. They are cheats.

Millar and Chambers knowingly and deliberately took performance enhancing substances they knew were banned under the rules of their sports. They are cheats

So does it come down to intent (ala manslaughter vs murder) ?

But then those same drugs (as in Nielsons case) are used to enhance (or in his case mask). Would this then provide a means of cover / excuse.

Sets up the ideal that as long as you have a handy excuse ... you'll avoid the life time ban.

Conundrum.

I think there is provision within the anti doping guidance to account for intent (i.e. lower levels of punishment. Should these be removed under the "life time ban for all drug users" ideal ?

Cheats are cheats its like having a head start in a race....cheating. Life time ban? well clearly that is not going to happen but a 5 year ban with constant testing if the person says he wants to compete in the furure if they say no and then change there minds then the ban starts from the time they say they will compete in the future. Also the 5 year ban for some atheletes is a life time ban?
One thing about bans for taking drugs as in Rugby, is the ban for taking recreational drugs, If they are not a performance enchancer nobody should be banned for taking recreational drugs ??????

If they are not a performance enchancer nobody should be banned for taking recreational drugs

Except David Buck, the Wheelchair tennis player who was banned for testing positive to ... cannabis !!!

Yeah the recreational drugs thing is daft. Shock horror; young people sometimes take recreational drugs!

Hypocritical too, as alcohol and tobacco aren't banned. Drug testing should be to root out the cheats, not punish someone for smoking a spliff ffs.

don simon - Member
I however need a doctor's not to explain that while the asthma drugs I take are illegal and banned on the WADA list, I, in fact, am not doing anything illegal. Or should I not be allowed to compete?
Not all black and white is it?

Err what? Is being leaner not a performance advantage for a footballer then?
I feel a bit sorry for Toure, because basically he was being a bit stupid, but really, he is a professional athlete who took drugs to lose weight - of course it was performance enhancing. It's hardly in the same category as being caught taking steroids, but then he only recieved a 6 month sentence so that is reflected in the punishment.

FLandis got caught at the TdF that he won, so I don't see how him having a 2 year ban or a lifetime ban makes a blind bit of difference to Oscar standing on the top step of the podium. A 2 year ban pretty much finished his career anyway so the length of the ban wasn't important, he cheated because he thought he could get away with it.

The main point I came in here to make is that the harshness of the sentence is not the main deterent - it is the likelihood of getting caught.
If the harshness of the sentence was the key factor in deciding whether to break the rules then we would see a significant difference in the murder rate in US states that have the death penalty compared to those that don't... but there isn't.
Tougher penalties are a red herring, the key is increasing the likelihood of being caught. The authorities seem to be onto this, at least in cycling anyway, with the testing regimen they have.

He knew the rules and made his choice. He is banned from the Olympics. He is still probably making a bloody good living from the sport.

Whether or not he is making a good living is beside the point and as far as "knowing the rules" maybe and maybe not. It appears those rules are "flexible" in certain situations.

Rubbish in your case (and mine) you are dealing with an illness. Taking ashma drugs isn't a performance enchancer

Many athletes have been banned for taking over the counter drugs for cold/flu symptoms. Without googling it want Linford Christie "almost" banned towards the endo of his career for taking something along those lines?
Some Asthma drugs contain steroids which may (again without googling it) be on the banned list.

Rubbish in your case (and mine) you are dealing with an illness. Taking ashma drugs isn't a performance enchancer if you have ashma they don't even allowe you to compete an even footing as in most cases they are only partialy efective.

Its actually on the banned list - or at least Salbutamol is - which an All Black prop got pinged for when he failed a drugs test 🙂

I thought diuretic use was essentially as a masking agent? Not about losing weight, perhaps?