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

  • #61
    Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

    If what Michael Lewis and Conto describe in their messages above had been happening in this thread then I would have let it ride and probably enjoyed the conversation. But that is not at all what I have seen. I've had many intelligent and useful conversations on the subject of doping. But they are conversations- making a point and listening to others basically saying, "I hear what you're saying but I disagree" on some points.

    In this discussion I see lots of people who have their minds already made up and only want to shout louder each time someone makes a counter point. Completely false statements are made. Half truths are taken as gospel. When people try to explain the situation they are attacked. Were people willing to listen and argue in this discussion I'd let it continue. So far I've seen no sign of this happening. Most posts have some slash or cut at the person they are replying to that causes the conversation to quickly turn into a shouting match. All sides are guilty.

    If all parties are willing to listen, make cogent arguments, and be respectful then the thread can continue. Otherwise, it stops here.

    Ben

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

      One last time,

      Its not that I ignored the answer, its that the answer does not satisfy me. Here is why:

      If someone were to ilegally administor EPO, sell it on the black market, or buy it from the black market, they can be held legally responsible for their actions. That is against the law. Furthermore, by not letting someone particpate in a meet (lets say I wanted to ron the mile in Oslo) I would be turned away. Why is that? Its because I have not met a qualifying standard set forth by the meet officials. The meet officials ultimately have to answer to the IAAF since that is the governing body, no? Are you saying that I could sue for discrimination and unequal opportunity? Does past performance really have any indication of future performance?

      The bottom line is the meet promoters and the IAAF make the rules. If a meet did not want someone to run at their venue because they are too slow or because they were not willing to abide by the rules set forth by the governing federation, where is the difference. If Maurice Geene said "I don't believe in your falst start rule and I'll false start as many times as I please... and if you tell me I can't come because of my beliefs I'll sue under 'restraint of trade' how well do you think that will fly?

      I am calling for an overhaul of the system if these things can not be worked out within the system. You have yet to explain to me, in terms that I deem reasonable, why a meet promoter, at the very minimum, can limit the field, can insitute rules with respect to fouling, false starts, etc, but apparently can not institute a contract or set of rules on drug doping.

      Perhaps if you're the Oslo meet promoter you say if you're caught for drugs at our venue you can never come back unless you reveal the names of all who helped you cheat. Then you can come bac the year after next. Would that be allowed? If so, and if every IAAF santioned meet had this rule, wouldn't it be the same as what I originally mentioned?

      M

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

        Pego,

        Drug use, in my opinion, is someone who uses a substance on the banned substance list. Ibelieve those lists need to be revisited, but that is another matter altogether.

        M

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

          "Otherwise, it stops here."

          Apparently not :-(

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

            "Were people willing to listen and argue in this discussion I'd let it continue. So far I've seen no sign of this happening." -

            Ben I took issue with the argument that athletes are just doing their job, and gave reasons why I find the argument less than convincing. Eg., has an athlete entered the profession "illegally" if they broke the rules to become professional (ie. worth paying)? What is professional about their conduct if they are cheating within the profession itself? I'd also be interested in knowing more about the legal issues raised re: "restraint of trade" and how a lawyer offered $100 million to find a way around these barriers would proceed.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

              A fact-based discussion that maintains the guidelines I've outlined can resume. If the tone of the conversation turns ugly again then I'll end the thread permanently. If you post after this message then you're agreeing to the guidelines I've set.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                >>Perhaps if you're the Oslo meet
                >promoter you say if you're caught for drugs at
                >our venue you can never come back unless you
                >reveal the names of all who helped you cheat.
                >Then you can come bac the year after next.
                >Would that be allowed? If so, and if every
                >y IAAF santioned meet had this rule, wouldn't it
                >be the same as what I originally
                >mentioned?>>

                Of course that would work, but it will never happen. Meet promoters (and I'm not singling out Oslo; that was your example) are by and large a bunch of sharks in the water. (As is the promoter of anything.) They have their own self-interest first and foremost. They've tried self-policing in the past, with agreement not to meet say, the outrageous demands of Carl Lewis for X dollars a meet.

                What happened? Somebody saw the chance to be the only one to have Carl Lewis in his meet and broke the agreement. If Oslo were dumb enough to say they would never let high-profile athlete X run again, there would be no end of meets who might not previously have had a shot rushing to sign him up. The dynamics of all this are incredibly complex, but the bottom line is that human nature--aka greed--wins every time.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                  Hi, I'm willing to listen and argue and I hope this thread continues. I agree with stronger penalties for cheaters and a good place to start is at the next Olympics. The olympic oath that every athlete takes says: "In the name of all competitors, I promise that we shall take part in these Olympic Games, respecting and abiding by the rules that govern them, in the true spirit of sportsmanship, for the glory of sport and the honor of our teams."

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                    Agreed. First, I am not a lawyer. No apologies ; in my opinion money is very much an obstacle to progress here. I have heard about the rulings by courts and things like "restraint of trade", so would it be reasonable to conclude that court decisions represent a barrier to progress re: the battle on drugs? Not the only barrier but a significant one? If so, here's an interesting question: Assume for sake of discussion that some very wealthy Arab philanthropist fan of Athletics puts up a $1billion US reward for a law firm which can successfully find a way around the legal barriers erected by European courts (and any other courts which may be part of the problem). What might we see then? I would like to ask that any responses please respect my admission that I am not a lawyer and keep in mind that I am sincerely trying to come at this from a fresh perspective.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                      Yikes! A half-hour ago you were offering $100 million. Now it's a billion! Pretty soon we'll be talking real money! (rim-shot)

                      Given that the overall importance of the state of athletics is a pimple on a flea's butt compared to the rest of the world's real problems, why the heck would anybody waste it on us? Any Arab philanthropist with those kinds of bucks would simply buy Israel from the Hebrews and solve that problem!

                      Please don't take that as a put-down, but if we're going to have a rational conversation we have to have rational parameters, not wild flights of fantasy.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                        I think we may just have to wait for complete chaos before things might change. The two year ban will look more and more ridiculous like it does in Cross Country Skiing right now. "Oh wow there's blank back from her ban" "Did you see blank he looks fitter than ever", "I heard he spent last winter training with...." Really, this is not a prevention of work it's a holiday and most athletes come back rested, well trained and better than before.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                          Economist... I know that would work and I knew your answer before you said it. Now, the one I really DON'T know is why the IAAF does not institute these policies for any event sanctioned by them? It would be in effect the same thing as each individual meet doing it.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                            "but if we're going to have a rational conversation we have to have rational parameters, not wild flights of fantasy."

                            No offence taken, and I hear what you are saying. What I was trying to emphasize was that I feel that court decisions are a barrier to the extent that nobody figures out a legally ingenious way around them. It seems from what I have read that alot of people think the decisions are insurmountable obstacles. Maybe given what it would cost at this time and the money available that is true. But it's not like we're trying to get away with division by zero here.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                              You might as well put up a billion dollars for the lawyer who can get the US Supreme Court to say it's ok to extract confessions by torture.

                              As several people have tried to explain here, the Euro courts have made it clear that certain antidoping measures are not acceptable. I think a single meet director could, in his discretion, decide not to invite people who have ever been suspended for doping. In fact, I believe there are a couple of meets that have announced just such a policy. But as soon as meets get together to talk about this, or the IAAF tries to enact such a ban by rule, they're stepping over the line and are going to be found to have unlawfully restrained trade. That is painfully clear, and anyone who tries to re-litigate this question is probably wasting his time and money, even though the result is that the sport has a weaker antidoping program than it ought to.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                                Michael/Michael: You may find it hard to believe, but you're sooo much better off in a world which affords the legal protections that are being discussed here.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X