Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

    You guys still taking shots at Mr. Hill's explanation really need a remedial reading class.

    To those comparing drug offenses in a sport to molestation and fraud within the securities industry are out of your minds in terms of how the courts would react to them.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

      you gotta love Cyril; can always count on him to post 1520 words from previous posts before he gets to his 25 words or less of wisdom.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

        Pay Attention,

        We agree to disagree then. A court will never support a drugged athlete if it is proven that he has drugged (through proper handling of A and B samples, etc). In addition, if an athlete is legally bound to a contract in which he says he will not cheat, the case will be thrown out immediately. Again, you're not seeing the IAAF for what it is... a regulating body. Do you understand what that means? THEY MAKE THE RULES, not the athletes. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT to suspend whomever they want... just like the athletes have the right to take a chance and cheat.

        There is NO BETTER example than securities fraud and cheating as an athlete. They are pretty much identical. Sponsors are investing in these guys under false pretenses and they are taking the money. They are also stealing from those clean athletes... often millions of dollars worth of money. Lets, for a quick sec, say that El G or Geb admit to having been on drugs their whole careers. Between appearance $$, sponsorships and winnings we're talking 10s of millions of dollars. Possibly more. If you take the whole track "industry", you'll find probably somewhere in the magnitude of 10 times that number of money that has been earned ilegally.

        Sorry, Pay attention, like some of those before you, you're just plain old wrong on this one. Not to sound stuck up or cocky, but you really are. IAAF can change the rules and if you think they can't, well, its quite unfortunate that they have duped you too.

        M

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

          You gotta love all the noble and courageous anonymous yahoos dishing out their barbs from behind the safety of whatever pseudonymous handle they conjure up for a thread. Barf!

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

            "You guys still taking shots at Mr. Hill's explanation really need a remedial reading class."

            You need a remedial logic class. Gary Hill is not infallible and there have been several interesting and thought-provoking responses to his argument that athletes are professionals and therefore their right to earn money should not be trampled on unreasonably. I go to work and I earn my paycheque as a teacher without compromising the ability of my fellow employees to earn an honest living. I got into my profession by demonstrating competence within my field and adhering to the rules and regulations of the Federation to which I belong. I did not have to cheat my way into a paycheque as some, not all, athletes are doing. Those who do, are entirely unprofessional. There is nothing professional about their conduct. There are rules governing the arena in which they earn their living. If they choose not to abide by those rules, why would you feel so sorry for them? They are dishonest and should find another field in which to work. Further, how do you know they would ever have made it into the pro ranks without using drugs in the first place? I suggest you stop being an apologist for cheats and those who defend them. When this sport gets sufficiently serious with cheats and short-circuits their cost-benefit analysis of the consequences of being a cheat, watch how fast they disappear.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

              OK, Mr. Lewis, so you're a teacher. Hypothetically, let's suppose for some reason that in your continuing-education classes you found yourself unlikely to pass, so you cheated and a while down the road that transgression came to light.

              Can you honestly tell us that you'd accept having your credential revoked for all time and never be allowed to teach again?

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                First I would not cheat....especially if that was the penalty! In my case there'd be a double deterrent operating, my conscience and my calculated self-interest. I have no problem stating that in such a hypothetical situation (and that it is) my common sense would be scaring me even more than my conscience. And I would hardly feel sorry for anyone who was so dense. It's called responsibility and owning your behaviour, not to mention using your brain. People get themselves into all kinds of messes even when they know the consequences are severe and they decide to gamble anyway. Like driving drunk. You might not hit anyone but the penalties are stiff and rightly so. Deter athletes from cheating and they won't. Give them too little incentive to be honest and too many will cheat. Tough love and I care about this sport passionately. I hate what has happened to it and 2 decades+ of IAAF penalties haven't made much if any difference. Time to get serious.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                  If Mr Mackey cheated with the aid of someone else (i.e. someone let him read his paper) and he ratted that other person out, he would have the ability to continue teaching in a year or 2. If he did not do that, I suspect Michael, knowing the penality of possible banishment from his profession, would never actually do it. I suppose, Mr Mackey, you are one of those who WOULD try and get away with it. And, given that, you are as good as any drug cheat and this argument is a moot point with you.

                  M

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                    I'm quite disappointed with the quality of this thread. Many of you are entirely missing the point, and that's not excusable because Garry set forth the plain facts quite clearly.

                    Regardless of what I or any of you think is an appropriate penalty, the fact is that the IAAF had a four-year penalty for the first offense and it was challenged in several countries. The IAAF litigated the question, put a lot of money and effort into defending its position, and lost.

                    It's rather clear that under the prevailing law in Europe, two years is the maximum penalty that will be upheld by the courts. I was sorry this happened. I thought that two years is not enough to deter athletes from committing the offense. Four years was a much better penalty. But it just cannot be sustained legally.

                    Attempting to imposing life suspensions for the first offense, as some of you would like to do, would have no useful effect. It would force athletes to hire lawyers and the IAAF to do the same. At the end of the day, the lawyers would make money and everyone else would lose because the penalty would be thrown out.

                    Is this the best of all possible worlds? Hell, no. But it is the world we live in. The IAAF, USATF, and even WADA has accepted the reality of this unfortunate legal constraint. Yes, the penalty is too light. But it is what it is.

                    There's nothing else useful to say.

                    Lets move on.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                      I have a few questions for the members of the lynching mob here. What do you consider an athlete's transgression worthy of hanging?
                      A true performance enhancer, i.e. anabolic steroids, EPO and similar?
                      Possibly (mildly) enhancing, i.e. ephedrine
                      Those not even on the IAAF list (without evidence that they are even performance enhancing), i.e modafinil?
                      Anything in food or drinks with a pharmacologically active ingredient, i.e. a cup of tea, a bite from a hot pepper?
                      Parafrazing Bill Clinton, define what is a "use of drugs"?
                      "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                      by Thomas Henry Huxley

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                        Turned off...

                        Then there needs to be a complete overhaul of our sport and right now its in the IAAF's hands to do that. Explain to me why the IAAF can not make all the athletes participating in IAAF sanctioned events sign a contract agreeing to abide by the rules set forth the The Establishment? I'm serious, I don't know what would prohibit this from happening.

                        Michael

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                          Rosa Parks you are not.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                            Sorry, Pego, Rosa Parks you are not. Deciding that all avenues have been explored and accepting the distasteful status quo has never righted a single wrong in the history of the world. Nor will it cure any disease or environmental or social problem. History shows that what it usually takes is an unflagging passion and persistence to keep coming back at the problem from new angles, and sometimes that means decades of struggle and innovation. If you don't think the sport you love is worth that much, how much do you really love it?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                              Dear mob leader Conto. Don't I recall that you were once banned from the letsrun board for disreputable behaviour? If so, the rest of us with the with the pitchforks and torches are going to have to call for your resignation here, because in our world there's no second chances. You're no longer acceptable as a poster.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                                There's nothing else useful to say.

                                Lets move on. -turned off


                                Please read the above reply to Pego, it was meant for both of u.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X