I dont think that it mattered if they knew what the punishment would be they knew that by taking this dirty drug they were cheating as well as decieving the public who pays to watch them. They are a black eye to the sport in the worse sense and the lifetime ban in the best punishment to fit the crime
I think that a life time ban for thg is good because this was a man made steriod and they had to have some type of information about it. Some one had to tell them how to take it and what was in it. It is your responsibility and decision on what you take so it is the individual's fault and this is fair
Depends on the country. There is precious little in the USA that protects the right of workers in any profession. Lawyers are disbarred, teachers lose liscences, etc., and they have to find a different line of work. The courts do not protect them.
>explain law guy. they should be able to do what
they like if the rules are clearly defined<
US Federal law says that our National Governing Bodies cannot have eligibility requirements that are more strict than those of their respective International Federations (in our case, the IAAF). The IAAF punishment for first doping offenses is maximum two years of ineligibility. So that becomes USATF's maximum too.
I personally have no problem with a lifetime ban for first offenders. It sure would be a better deterrent than what we've got now. But it just wouldn't fly legally.
Dont know much about federal laws but I would hope that USATF did their homework before putting this out. I also think that this should be something that the IAAF adds also because their are a lot of people who take the 2 year ban come back and continue to make money and mis use the system. i also think to add to the rule that all winnings should have to be given back if you fail a doping test. Look at chambers he has made a lot of money in the sport and he will still be able to get the money he won. regardless if an athlete did not test positive at a certain all monies should be forfited. But that is just my opinion I could be wrong
Am real pleased to see positive feedback from current athletes like Stringfellow and Brew on the lifetime ban of positive testers...I agree wholeheartedly...two years is a lightweight slap on the wrist and does not strongly enough encourage compliance...the goal is for clean athletes to rest assured that they are on a level playing field and not have to continue to second guess as to whether theit competitors are playing fair...I like the catch line used by WADA (World Anti-doping Agency)..."play true"
HOW IT GETS TO AN ATHLETES SYSTEM SHOULD BE THE MAIN QUESTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO BAN AN ATHLETE FOR LIFE. JUST BECAUSE AN ATHLETE TESTED POSITIVE FOR THG OR ANY DRUG, DOES NOT MEAN SHE/HE IS GUILTY OF TAKING IT. THERE ARE INSTANCES WHEN AN ATHLETE TAKES SOMETHING NOT KNOWING IT CONTAINS A BANNED SUBSTANCE [CASING POINT: FIGURE SKATING RUSSIAN PAIRS - BEREZNAYA AND ZIGURELEZA, SORRY FOR SPELLLING]. BEREZNAYA TOOK A COLD PILL NOT KNOWING IT CONTAINED BANNED SUBSTANCE. THEY WERE, I BELIEVE, STRIPPED OF THEIR MEDALS AND WERE BANNED FOR 6 MONTHS BUT NOT FOR LIFE BECAUSE IT IS AN HONEST MISTAKE. MY POINT IS YOU JUST DON'T BAN SOMEONE FOR LIFE IF HE/SHE IS TESTED POSITIVE FOR A BANNED DRUG. HOW THE DRUG GOT TO THE PERSON'S SYSTEM SHOULD BE THE DETERMINANT FACTOR FOR BANNING SOMEONE.
I am french and here, the sport culture seems to be quit clean but we saw (in the last world championship) that it is not true ; there are also athletes who cheat here and i think that they must pay for these cheatings and their doping entourage too !! (especially dealers and doctors).
I still think there are unintended consequences here. The litigation in this is going to get ugly. I prefer it just like back in the day--4 year ban strike one, life on strike two. 4 years is enough deterrent (for some, that's a whole career).
Here's a possible scenario. What if a high profile superstar, who's broken tons of records, tests positive for a steriod? What if the athlete claims his innocence, showing proof of mismanagement at the meet where he was tested? As a result of the proof (overwhelming, by the way!), the public believes and overwhelmingly supports this legend.
As you can see, I'm putting Butch Reynolds (the proof and mismanagement part) and Pete Rose (the public support part!) as one person. That will be a possible scenario if this law comes into effect.
I don't believe in lifetime bans for a first offense. There's just too much that can go wrong. But I do think we should go back to a 4-year suspension for a first offense, and then lifetime for the second.
Assuming such a plan goes through and hopefully it won't because law guy is right it will create a terribly uneven playing field. See the thread(s) we had post-Paris relative to penalties.
The IAAF has already discovered that in international courts of law (at least in Europe) that even a 4-year penalty isn't unacceptable let alone life. So the IAAF isn't likely to follow suit on this and it's doubtul many/any other countries will either. Even after its national disaster Canada didn't take such a draconian step.
Hopefully this is just a good PR move by USATF. When they're told they can't do it they can say "aw shucks, we did everything we could and they wouldn't let us; you can't blame us any more."
I don't want Dwain Chambers running against the U.S. again in 2005 when U.S. sprinter X can't.
>The IAAF has already discovered
>that in international courts of law (at least in
>Europe) that even a 4-year penalty isn't
>unacceptable let alone life.
But I don't understand why it's unacceptable. The athletes who cheat are defrauding meet promoters and corporations out of hundreds of thousands (even millions) of dollars. In the real world, that would be grand, grand larceny at its finest, and the consequences would put the guilty party IN PRISON for life. A lifetime ban from the sport you swindled starts to look pretty good.
I don't buy the restraint of trade arguments, either. If you cheat, you aren't wanted in the trade anymore anyway. There's more to life than running fast. Go find something else that you can do honestly.
I don't buy the restraint of trade
>arguments, either. If you cheat, you aren't
>wanted in the trade anymore anyway. There's more
>to life than running fast. Go find something
>else that you can do honestly.
I'm in agreement as well. If a lawyer gets disbarred or a doctor loses their medical license, even for something that isn't illegal to the rest of society, would anyone feel pity they can't practice their trade anymore?
>I don't buy the restraint of trade arguments, either.<
And neither do I. But the European Union has these goofy rules, and the courts in Germany, Russia, and possibly other places, have made it clear that two years is the max that the IAAF can impose for first offenses. From what I understand, the IAAF hates this and so does WADA, but their lawyers have told them there's nothing they can do about it.
I went back and reread the USATF press release and I find myself in strong agreement with it. After reading most the posts, I wondered if a lifetime ban for accidental drug use was fair. But that's not what the zero tolerace policy is about. It's for steroids, and I find myself strongly in support of a lifetime ban for steroid use even for a first time offender. As the press release notes, the USATF said it will explore the legalities of such a ban so I'll leave the lawyering to the USATF for now. But I simply cannot find any reason to allow an athlete or coach who knowingly takes steroids to earn their living in the sport. After all, it's not a one time drug like cold medicine or other banned stimulants which might provide a temporary advantage.
On the topic of those who believe the cheaters have defrauded the promoters or public, I might suggest that we've gotten what we deserve. Why? We put the greatest reward and glory on records. Yes, we'd all like to see world records, but take a look at the reward system -- break a world record and you get a huge bonus. Winning isn't enough. Aren't we encouraging someone who has the potential to break a record to do everything possible -- to include cheating -- to attain that goal? Of course promoters want world records, and most would be willing to look the other way if their meet got attention because of a world record. A world record is always the lead sentence, often the only reason the press picked up a story. I can't think of a professional salary structure or prize money for any other professional sport that places so much financial emphasis on setting new records.
I know that downplaying the importance of times, distances, and heights doesn't sit well for the statistical minded. I've said before that I enjoy seeing a world record as much as anybody, but I don't want to sacrifice the intergrity of the sport for the sake of "watching history." I want to see good, fair competition where the winner is determined by hard work and determination -- not who has the best chemists.
This is a great idea! This should have taken place long ago. Along with the lifetime ban, there should also be a substantial financial penalty. The penalty should reflect the money that cheaters have already stolen from other athletes who have done it with hard work and sweat!!! Stop trying to get rich quick and put the work in!
I still do not understand how "Track and Field" of all athletes can walk around proud knowing that the goals that they have achieved were enhanced by cheating.
"lets get back to the basics, Lets see who REALLY can run the fastest, jump the farthest, and throw the farthest".
1990,94 Goodwill games champion, 1991 World champion, 1996 Olympic champion, American and Olympic record holder.
<<If I want to, say, encourage my kids to get a well-paying job, I don't expect them to go rob a bank, but rather to follow the challenge under the rules which are set forth.>>
Hulk, I think doping might be more like insider trading, plagiarism, or lying to the boss or tax man rather than bank robbing. You have to assume that the kid already has a good job but wants to take a short cut to get ahead. Remember these athletes are already exceptional, they just want another edge -- Rosie Ruiz comes to mind as someone who tried to rob a bank.
For those of you that do not know I am Darrell Smith. Brew, Kenny and Savante shoudl know who I am. I know Kenny does, whats up kid? What you up to these days?
For the topic. Life time bans a re ridiculous and should not be considered for first timers. This is too much burden for such an offense that sometimes is of very little fault of the athlete. More importantly, a lifetime ban is the simple and easy way out of this. I have a better program that will solve a lot of issues. I will get to that in a minute. I also disagree with 4 year bans, it is the same as a life time ban in our sport. Remember folks, the life span on top is shorter in track than 98% of all other sports in the world! You ban someone for 4 years their career is over. The physical demands of track do not stand long periods of lay offs. Two years is pushing the envelope as is.
Now to my master plan. The issue at hand is teh ability for the banned athlete to return and continue doing teh same thing as before. The theory being that during the 2 year ban they are free to do whatever they please because they are not policed. Here lies our problem and solution.
Forget severe punishments, if an athlete has not retired they should be required to submit to testing on a regular basis at their own expense or risk not being reinstated upon the end of their suspension.
Suspending someone and ignoring their existence gives them 2 years to get ready, by the time the punishment is up they will test clean as a whistle, this is the problem.
We are the toughest testing sport, but life time bans are not a sign of toughness, as a matter of fact it is too tough. There are too many variables involved in doping cases to just uniformly ban someone forever. The nandrolone cases taught us that much.
Well the iaaf is partly to be blamed for cutting back on the 4 year ban to 2 years in Athens at the 1997 World A Congress meeting. I think some athletes take the risk knowing tha they may only get two years and like in certain cases only actually get months while their cases are being disputed. Personally certain coaches should also suffer the consequences. USATF should probably establish a blood test policy for all its team making members before every major championships or games. Then again that might be opening another can of political worms.
Well, the 2-year ban in not like a free, uncontrolled, doped ride to excellence. By the rules you must give a certain amount of clear tests before you are allowed back. Some former dopers even seem to be under extra scrutiny.
On the other hand I feel that once you´ve deliberately misused the trust of your competitors you´re a cheat whether yo´re banned or not. I doesn´t wipe off.