Lifetime Ban First Time Steroid Use: Not A Good Idea

[Alexander]

Re: Zero Tolerance and Potential Lifetime Ban

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.

[DentyCracker]

Re: Zero Tolerance and Potential Lifetime Ban

Speaking of blood tests, I hear they are trying to get a reliable test for HGH out in timre for Athens

[TripleJumper2]

Re: Zero Tolerance and Potential Lifetime Ban

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.

[Smoke]

Re: Zero Tolerance and Potential Lifetime Ban

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.

Re: Zero Tolerance and Potential Lifetime Ban

<<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.

Re: Lifetime Ban First Time Steroid Use: Not A Good Idea

Kenny H. I agree with you totally! And Go K. State!

By the way do you know where Clifton E. is these days?

Re: Zero Tolerance and Potential Lifetime Ban

>Aren't we
>encouraging someone who has the potential to
>break a record to do everything possible -- to
>include cheating -- to attain that goal?

No, I don't think we are, since the rules are clearly in place and the (public) stance on anti-doping is clear.

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.

Re: Lifetime Ban First Time Steroid Use: Not A Good Idea

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".

Triple jumper
1990,94 Goodwill games champion, 1991 World champion, 1996 Olympic champion, American and Olympic record holder.

[MDC]

Re: Zero Tolerance and Potential Lifetime Ban

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.

Re: I agree with you

>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.

[Asterix]

Re: I agree with you

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?

Re: I agree with you

>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.

Re: I agree with you

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.

Re: I agree with you

doh!

Re: I agree with you

"Re: I agree with you
posted by: vaulter83
Posted Thursday, Oct 23 at 3:17 AM
Thu, Oct 23 at 12:17:42 PDT
your english is better then some americans."

Isn't it better to say "thAn" some americans ? :-)