Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

[MJD]

Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

>The variations are limitless... the concept is
>the same.
Like the 3 strikes laws. 3 relatively minor offenses but put them together and you are in jail for life.

[Guest]

Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

Ah-Ha Another dynamic....Politicians proving a point at the expense of the system and those it regulates. It ain't broke, just occasionally misused.

[Guest]

Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

Why is it that people cannot understand the difference between someone explaining something and someone defending something?

Garry, who is much closer to and more knowledgable about IAAF decision-making than most of the rest of us (after all, it's his job to keep track of such things) was simply explaining the reasons why first-offense penalties were rolled back, and were unlikely to be expanded as called for by the original poster. He stated flat-out that he wasn't defending those decisions, but merely letting us know why, given the facts involved, things weren't happening the way some of us wanted them to. Not an excuse -- an explination.

[michael lewis]

Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

Re: the argument that the penalty should fit the crime because athletics is a livelihood - Not a sound analogy, and here's why. Athletes start getting remuneration when they have become good enough to warrant being paid. If they get from the "minor leagues" to the majors by breaking the rules of the sport, then they have entered the profession illegally.

[Guest]

Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

The sport is going to self-destruct, along with the entire Olympic movement, over the issues of money and the drug use that pursuit of the money encourages. It is time to start anew.

Personally, if I had the funds or desire, I'd start a system where the very mention of drug testing or money would have your thrown out of the stadium.

It never fails to amaze me that the majority of readers on this forum still happen to think that the majority of athletes are somehow "clean". No one is clean, either in motive or practice. Any athlete that has ever competed has tried their best to come up with some sort of advantage over his competitor.

Most of you still have your heads where the sun doesn't shine.

Kurt

[Guest]

Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

Al, with all do respect to Gary, I think he is wrong. Like I said, Randy Barnes was dealt a lifetime ban after the second offense, as was Ben Johnson. Neither of these two men won any kind of court case that reversed this decision. If one can be banned after the 2nf offense, he can surely be banned after the first. GH's logic is flawed about why the IAAF does not have harsher penalties. It most certainly COULD if gone about correctly. I'm not saying he thinks the system is a good one, I'm saying the reason he believes the system is the way it is is probably wrong. He probably heard it from someone within the IAAF... and they have an interest in not expressing the true sentiment of the organization.

In reality, I suspect the IAAF just doesn't care as much as we do about drug cheats. If they did, and since GH was very correct at pointing out that it is a profession, they could institute a contract by which each "pro" athlete would have to sign. By the way... I repeat, LIFETIME BAN WOULD GO TO THOSE NOT WILLING TO COOPERATE. IF THEY DO, THE PENALTY WOULD BE EVEN LESS SEVERE... 1-2 YEARS.

M

[Guest]

Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

"signing a contract" isn't the way out. This is a silly example, but I use it to graphically illustrate the point: if you were an employer and you said that the only way I could work for you was if I agreed to let you beat me with a whip every morning, I could easily go to court and have that regulation overturned.

What the courts in those countries that have heard the cases have done have said that the penalties are too strict. They'd find the same way if the entry-rules were similarly stringent. Their idea of the "reasonable man theory" just doesn't jibe with yours, sorry.

[Guest]

Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

"It never fails to amaze me that the majority of readers on this forum still happen to think that the majority of athletes are somehow "clean". No one is clean, either in motive or practice."

Kurt - from my personal aquaintances and training partners over the years I can say with complete confidence that there are MANY clean athletes at the world class level. There are also MANY at the national class level. Remember, in the end it is a sport of INDIVIDUALS - and individuals make decisions based on their personal "code of conduct". There are many fine athletes in our sport with both the highest of goals and the highest of standards.

Saying no one is clean is pure B.S..

[michael lewis]

Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

"Chill a little on going after GH. I read, and rightly I might add, that GH's post was just trying to explain the situation not trying to defend it" - back off a little

"The ancient material you quote from the magazine never came to anything. End of story. At the time it was a legitimate coverage of what was in the news." -GH on thread "Wrong for the Sport"

The ancient material in question concerned the emergence of documents implicating T&FN's 1980s Athlete of the Decade, Marita Koch. It was from 1992. Gary you either didn't read my reply or ignored me. In it I quoted more material by jumping ahead to T&FN March 98 p.74, "More East German Doping Revelations" which blatantly contradicts your "end of story" line.

So I am not at all sure just where GH is coming from on this stuff. I find it very hard to believe that someone so knowledgeable can say that nothing more came of what I quoted from T&FN 92.

[Guest]

Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

"Gary you either didn't read my reply or ignored me"

Something tell me GH has more important things to do than read/answer every message on every board. Hopefully he's working on next months issue, rather than digging through past issues.

[Guest]

Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

>Personally, if I had the funds or desire, I'd start a system where the very mention of drug testing or money would have your thrown
out of the stadium.<

Why stop at that? As long as you're abrogating their right of free speech, you might as well imprison such people or, better yet, spare yourself the cost of feeding them--just have them shot.

And if you think the German courts are too lenient with doping offenders now, I suppose you think we should restore the Third Reich. Those guys certainly knew how to deal with offenders of all kinds, didn't they?

[michael lewis]

Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

"Something tell me GH has more important things to do than read/answer every message on every board"

Thanks for stating the obvious.

[Guest]

Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

Do you guys have jobs? Every company has rules that you need to abide. If you do not, you are fired. In some cases, you can never work in the same industry again. These are facts. They are not made up by me, but rather companies themselves AND REGULATING BODIES. Think of each track meet as being a company (they pay the athletes in attendence for their "services"). Then think of IAAF as the regulating body. This is similar to, lets say, Bank of America and NASD/Spitzer. The Bank has their rules (just like each track meet should) but the overall industry has theirs (just like in the investment world). Like any other insitution, cheating is a lethal offense. You lose your job and potentially, your career.

I think the most ridiculous thing is cheating on a test in a University. If I'm paying $35000 a year to go to school, I should be able to do whatever I want to pass a test. However, if I look at someone else's paper, the dean has the right to kick me out of school, doesn't he? If that record follows me, its wuite possible NO school will want me, isn't it? Maybe the next guy to plagarize and be kicked out of school should sue. Maybe the next Blodgett should be allowed to falsely promote stocks at another firm. Maybe Lagat should be allowed to run another drugges 3:26. Yeah... that all makes sense. Track and Field is the LEAST regulated institution out there. And its the IAAF's responsibility to change that. THEY CAN. Don't believe what GH says... Germany is certainly not going to sue the IAAF for instituting lifetime bans for anyone who is unwilling to cooperate with officials. And they DEFINITELY will not win if they do.

M

[Guest]

Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

>Do you guys have jobs? Every company has rules
>that you need to abide. If you do not, you are
>fired. In some cases, you can never work in the
>same industry again. These are facts. They are
>not made up by me, but rather companies
>themselves AND REGULATING BODIES.

I'm simply whipping a dead horse (before I go to work every morning?) but I'll add that if I molested one of my students, I'd never teach in the United States again. I don't think I'd land a job in Germany, either, and I don't see the courts there helping me out.

[Guest]

Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

>Do you guys have jobs? Every company has rules
>that you need to abide. If you do not, you are
>fired. In some cases, you can never work in the
>same industry again. These are facts. They are
>not made up by me, but rather companies
>themselves AND REGULATING BODIES. Think of each
>track meet as being a company (they pay the
>athletes in attendence for their "services").
>Then think of IAAF as the regulating body. This
>is similar to, lets say, Bank of America and
>NASD/Spitzer. The Bank has their rules (just
>like each track meet should) but the overall
>industry has theirs (just like in the investment
>world). Like any other insitution, cheating is
>a lethal offense. You lose your job and
>potentially, your career.

I think the most
>ridiculous thing is cheating on a test in a
>University. If I'm paying $35000 a year to go
>to school, I should be able to do whatever I
>want to pass a test. However, if I look at
>someone else's paper, the dean has the right to
>kick me out of school, doesn't he? If that
>record follows me, its wuite possible NO school
>will want me, isn't it? Maybe the next guy to
>plagarize and be kicked out of school should
>sue. Maybe the next Blodgett should be allowed
>to falsely promote stocks at another firm.
>Maybe Lagat should be allowed to run another
>r drugges 3:26. Yeah... that all makes sense.
>Track and Field is the LEAST regulated
>institution out there. And its the IAAF's
>responsibility to change that. THEY CAN. Don't
>believe what GH says... Germany is certainly not
>going to sue the IAAF for instituting lifetime
>bans for anyone who is unwilling to cooperate
>with officials. And they DEFINITELY will not
>win if they do.

M

Conto-

Great points. And if something doesn't change soon all the companies (meets) and the regulating body (IAAF) will be done for. Change is needed in T&F, drastic and swiftly. Life ban for first offense - records stipped.