I know it's all finished & all that, just interested if I'm on my own on this one. It's a no brainer for me. I'm always disappointed to hear/see athletes come back from a doping ban, no matter what their nationality
Yes.
Yes - once they've been caught, it's much harder to believe in future that they're not doping again.
No. 2 year ban is enough, they haven't killed anyone and circumstances are all different. They should however spend the two years in prison and have a criminal record.
No or rather it depends on specific circumstances. Must be nice to live in such a black and white world though...
The law has been thoroughly tested and is quite clear in this area and has come out against lifetime bans.
Do you really think the guy who smoked some weed should never be able to participate in his sport ever again?
How about Dwain Chambers - caught doping twice, still running now?
Yes
How about David Millar?
no. Its only sport.
nicko74 - MemberHow about Dwain Chambers - caught doping twice, still running now?
Won't someone tell him the Olympics is over he must be getting really tired by now or that sh*t he took is really good.
No, of course they shouldnt.
David Millar, what a man. Turned himself around. He even won a stage of this years tour.
No punishment of 4 years for Performance enhancing drugs, 2 years for the others (weed/coke etc)
WADA have done more research on this than STW and the Daily Mail can and thats what they reckon is best for catching,confessions and the rest.
No, and I think we've done this to death previously.
Yes.
If you're going to ban perfformance enhancing drugs it shouldn't really matter when the athlete used them, if they used them to enhance their performance, those gains still helped them get where they are today.
I'd happily watch an alternative drug fueled olympics where they had free reign on whatever they use tho.
Not a lifetime ban as anyone can make a wrong turn at some point. David Millar being a prime example. He did it and deeply regrets it. However 2 years is not enough. Someone could win gold at these games and fail a test tomorrow, but still be able to compete in Rio.
muggo - saying that someone should be banned for > 4 years is effectively a lifetime ban anyway in a lot of sports, I don't see how an athlete could keep their form and their edge without competing during that time period.
No it shouldn't
David Millar being a prime example. He did it and [b]said he[/b] deeply regrets it [b]so he could get a ride and subsequently onto team GB[/b].
First offence 5 year ban, second offence lifetime ban. 2 years is just too short, it's not enough of a deterrent. Lifetime for a first offence might be feasible a few years from now in cycling if the anti-doping effort keeps improving. Until the detection rate is much higher though you'll still have people doping in order to keep their pro contracts alive which in turn means less chance of a pro contract for new riders coming into the sport unless they dope to.
Yes.
As much as I'd like to say yes, the answers is currently no.
While the chances and incident rate of false positives is still there, then IMO a lifetime ban is wrong.
But why ban people for a bit of weed anyway, its not performance enhancing, and if we want to punish people for using it we've got the courts.
I'd happily watch an alternative drug fueled olympics
The Homeopatholympics?
While the chances and incident rate of false positives is still there, then IMO a lifetime ban is wrong
When was the last false positive?
No, it's just sport. Drug takers need to be punished and then rehabilitated just like normal life. You don't get a lifetime in prison for drug use, and sports has to be the same as normal life.
No. Professional sport is so riddled with performance enhancing products/drugs, some legal, some not, that the grey area between 'cheating' and 'just looking after yourself' is very indistinct indeed.
Ban the athlete? No...ban the coaches, the managers and the other assorted specialists who's job it is to know this stuff and steer their athletes through it all.
The law has been thoroughly tested and is quite clear in this area and has come out against lifetime bans.
I thought the case was that a lifetime ban, as put forward by the IOC, was not possible unless it was agreed by WADA, so if WADA change policy a lifetime ban could be implemented, therfore the actual concept of a lifetime ban has not been ruled out just the current mechanism for enforcing one was found to be incorrect - I may be mistaken though;
[i]"The CAS ruling states: "The IOC executive board's June 27, 2008 decision prohibiting athletes who have been suspended for more than six months for an anti-doping rule violation from participating in the next Olympic Games following the expiration of their suspension is invalid and unenforceable."
The CAS ruling stated that the IOC's only way of bringing in such a sanction was to have it agreed as part of the World Anti-Doping Code, to avoid claims of 'double jeopardy'. There appears to be little possibility of that happening however."[/i]
+1 emsz and roadie
2 years is a big enough punishment in terms of finances, opportunites and form imo.
2-4 years depending on severity of the offence.
Reduction of punishment period for actively helping to rid sport of doping. The more dopers and suppliers and dodgy team staff an offender dobs in to the cops, the shorter the sentence.
No.
Not unless you introduce lifetime bans for everyone else who breaks laws.
2 year ban has nothing to do with statute law, after all every country has different laws, it's all just enforced by the relevant international sporting bodies.
For those that say "No" then why not just allow drugs?
For those that say "No" then why not just allow drugs?
does everything have to be absolutely black and white?
For those that say "No" then why not just allow drugs?
Eh?
I don't agree with a lifetime ban from shops if you're caught shoplifting, but I don't quite see how you'd make the leap to 'then why not just allow a no pay option'
After being found guilty of doping any athlete who wishes to continue competing should be only be allowed to do so if they take massive doses of acid before competing.
You are saying that give them a second, third or fourth chance but they are getting an unfair and unnatural advantage over their clean competition. Some of those advantages will remain after they stop using drugs such as increased muscle mass. When they are allowed to compete again they will still have some small advantage that they wouldn't have had prior to drug use.
AFAIK No drug gives you muscle mass that is self sustaining. Could be wrong though.
I grant you it's a different kettle of fish once genetic modifications become de rigeur.
Not sure how you'd justify a lifetime ban for this though.
" 50 picograms per millilitre – of the controversial performance enhancing drug clenbuterol an amount which was 40 times below the minimum requirement of detection capability required by WADA."
As for recreational pharmaceuticals, well they may be being used to mask something else in the blood.
No, life isn't black and white, the pressures on athletes can be unimaginable, and IMO people deserve a second chance.
Do the "yes"-ers want the death penalty back?
Given the Italians banned Ricco for 12 years, thereby ending his cycling career, it sounds very much like the agencies have the ability to ban people for their effective careers if they want to. In Ricco's case it was because he was doing life-threatening things (home blood transfusion nearly finished him off).
The aritcle written by Jonathon Vaughters is an interesting read regarding an athletes motivation to dope and the best way to prevent it.
(He also confesses to doping in it)
My view is that our opinion on former drugs cheats is not formed by their doping but by what they do afterwards and all of our other biases.
If, like Millar, they say sorry, knuckle down and try to clean then we warm to them. But Vino's win in the Road Race still left a sour taste in the mounth as he is view as a serial doper who when finally caught did nothing but serve his ban and come back trying to win again.
Lifetime bans leave no room for the Millars of this world and we need them to win the war. Unfortunately to achive this we need to suffer the Vinos, Warren Gatlins etc.
You are saying that give them a second, third or fourth chance but they are getting an unfair and unnatural advantage over their clean competition.
Craig, I understand what you're saying but that statement is based on the assumption that the competition is 'clean'. Hand on heart...I cannot honestly share that belief...and it breaks my heart to have arrived at that place.
Nope, but 4years for PEDs and 2years of recreational.
Happy to have returning athletes back into the sport they were banned from, rehabs a good thing, so is forgiveness.
I do however think the financial side of athletes winnings ought to be considered. If banned then a repayment of all winnings 4years previous to the implimentation of the ban ought to be brought in. I guess here I'm saying I want them returned (almost) to a nutral position and not profit (too much) form the sport they discredit.
I know nothing about drugs, performance enhancing or getting high. I'm only asking the question to see what the resulting debate will be.
If the sports are so riddled with drugs then why not just let them fill their boots. The differences between the different events is huge with some having standard equipment and others using the latest hi-tech developments such as rowing and cycling within their parameters. If they all used a standard piece of off the shelve equipment then it would be down to the individual and save a lot of arguements about illegal standards afterwards.
IMO cheating in track & field (and other disciplines) is wrong on so many levels. I accept there are so many individual stories that should be looked at on a merit basis & I wouldn't consider recreational drugs as damaging as performance enhancing but cheating & hoping not to get caught destroys the very fabric the Olympics SHOULD be about
Poor old Tyson Gay getting beat to bronze by his drug indused (now probably the cleanest man in sprinting) Justin Gatling is bad form.
Severe penalties for knowingly cheating may put off other dopers. All it takes is .2 of a second to be in the history books for ever.
Rip Florence Griffith-Joyner
