Overreaction?

[Wilmar]

Hello people,

Am I really the only one who thinks this new idea of immediate life bans might be a classical overreaction?
IMHO there is not so much wrong with the punishments already out there for people who use doping (two years for steroids the first time, lifelong ban for the second). Of course, you depend on the testing procedures catching new drugs, but that doesn't change anyway.

I think the effort should go into much more testing (especially out of competition), much faster publication of results and much more transparancy into punishments (and no, I am NOT talking about the US alone). Why not go that route first, because fleeing into higher punishments makes no sense otherwise anyway.

Regards, Wilmar
PS Some time ago somebody wrote that harsh punishments (like lifelong bans) were difficult to enforce in the US because of laws protecting people's right to make a living (or something like that). Will the lifelong ban by the USATF be enforcable in civil court?

[Guest]

Re: Overreaction?

Lifetime bans like many states' 'Zero Tolerance' or 'One Strike' laws are a reaction to 'criminals' who aren't deterred by the current punishments. People who break the law fall into two groups: those who are not deterred by punishments and those who will think twice if the punishment is harsh enough. Virtually EVERY drug violation is intentional. They just think that
a. they won't get caught
or
b. the benefit is worth the risk of the consequence

So we pass 'lifetime bans' in order to deter the second set. It's hard to have sympathy for this group because they knew what the punishment was before they commited the offense. The first group is irredeemable.

[Guest]

Re: Overreaction?

I do agree with your statements. It will probably not hold up in the American civil court system. Harry "Butch" Reynold's case probably still scares the living daylights out of the US federation. Some people still argue that 2 or 4 years is a "life time" in elite track and field and that the career is basically over after being suspended for a few years. I do not agree. If you are suspended at 25 years of age you can come back and become a champion at 29 for example. The current suspensions are ridiculous and need to be changed, but it is easier said than done (especially with the American justice system where you can sue McDonalds for having too hot coffee...)

Earlier this morning, an "expert panel" on Swedish National TV agreed that the lifetime ban is a rather lame attempt of the US federation to change its worldwide reputation of being too laid-back regarding the drug-issue. Like I said in a previous post that was deleted: The US federation has been known to cover up (put the lid on) certain drug-related incidents. Although I cannot remember the exact details, I think that CJ Hunter recently was caught in the US champs and was still allowed to compete in the major champs the same year.

Anyhow, unless the US launches a serious out-of -competition testing program (every other week of all US national team athletes) in combination with the lifetime ban, the drug-problem in US athletics will not be resolved.

The prospect of being remembered as an immoral cheater and the negative physical/mental side effects of using certain drugs (both of which are not related to the number of years the athlete is banned) are probably still the biggest deterrents. Then again, the loss of income after being banned (clearly related to the number of years the athlete is banned, but how many of us are actually earning that much money?) plays a role as well.

Thus, first and foremost, the American public must show their disgust with the steroid users. RELEASE AND PUBLISH THEIR NAMES IMMEDIATELY and do not let them compete for the United States ever again. It ought to be a huge embarrassment/humiliation to be caught in a drug-test! However, deep down I think Americans (in general) do not really care if your athletes are on drugs or not as long as they win. "Winning at all cost" is a VERY capitalist attitude. It is not how you get there, but if you get there at all what really counts in certain countries. Hell, your biggest sporting heroes are probably still Mark McGwire (androstenedione) or Barry Bonds (THG suspect)!

[Guest]

Re: Overreaction?

Why not just have random doping controll. have all the athletes report their where abouts at all times to the Federation. This I think is a much better solution for eradicating drugs in sport.
The problem I have is whether we will hear of the positives.They have such a bad reputation for playing by the rules.Life time ban is too harsh.

[Powell]

Re: Overreaction?

It is overreaction. Plus I'm afraid the practical impact will be the opposite of what people are expecting. As it is, it's already extremely hard to ban a US athlete (especially a high-profile one) due to the workings of the judicial system, among other things. With tougher punishments, the burden of proof will be even harder. And athletes risking their entire careers will be more willing to spend big money on lawyers to find loopholes in the system. It will result in drug cases which are even messier and drag on even longer than in the past, and a higher proportion of cheaters will be let off the hook.

[Guest]

Re: Overreaction?

>Regards, Wilmar
PS Some time ago somebody wrote that harsh
>punishments (like lifelong bans) were difficult to enforce in the US because of
>laws protecting people's right to make a living (or something like that). Will
>the lifelong ban by the USATF be enforcable in civil court?>

I doubt that a lifetime ban would stand up in the US. I believe a 4 year ban had trouble in other countries, one being Germany.

[michael lewis]

Re: Overreaction?

<<They just think that
a. they won't get caught
or
b. the benefit is worth the risk of the consequence

So we pass 'lifetime bans' in order to deter the second set. It's hard to have sympathy for this group because they knew what the punishment was before they commited the offense. The first group is irredeemable.>>

I think the first group is irredeemably stupid, and the second group slightly less so. I read the most disgusting thing in the Globe and Mail today, about a cannibal ring busted in Germany that included doctors and other professionals. One victim replied to an ad on the internet requesting "people for manslaughter". How thick can you get? What the hell did he expect? Maybe he wanted it to happen. But do I feel sorry for him? Uh, no.

[Guest]

Re: Overreaction?

I read the most disgusting thing in the Globe
>and Mail today, about a cannibal ring busted in Germany that included doctors
>and other professionals. One victim replied to an ad on the internet
>requesting "people for manslaughter". How thick can you get? What the hell
>did he expect? Maybe he wanted it to happen. But do I feel sorry for him?
>Uh, no.

Absolutely nothing to do with T&F but an intersting and somewhat amusing article in the UKs Telegraph yesterday about the German canibal. Incredible!

http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/ ... tid=107146

[Guest]

Re: Overreaction?

Jeff Hollobaugh's ESPN.com column on the subject

http://espn.go.com/oly/columns/hollobaugh/1682166.html

"Years ago I studied public relations. My instructor, a guy named George Robeck, knew his stuff, and taught by using real-life case histories. He showed us that there is good news and bad news, but if you handled the PR side of it well, it could be nearly all good. He would love Craig Masback."

[Guest]

Re: Overreaction?

The article hits the spot for sure. USATF sure knows how get the heat off its back without actually doing anything to solve the drug-problem in US track and field. Now blaming IAAF (along with other organizations), which has tried to get the US to take the drug-issue more seriously for years, is just ridiculous. And trying to implement an impossible drug-ban is another PR deal. Like I said in a previous post: US federation talks the talk, but does not walk the walk... And this writer was an editor of track and field news???

[Vince]

Re: Overreaction?

The new USATF proposed rules are now in line with the current IOC rules. Now it's time for the IAAF "to walk the walk, and stop talking the talk". WADA is publicly attacking anything the USATF does instead of supporting tougher doping rules. The IAAF brought this on themselves. Brilliant move by Masback.

[huh?]

Re: Overreaction?

>The new USATF proposed rules are now in line with the current IOC rules. Now it's time for the IAAF "to walk the walk, and stop talking the talk". WADA is publicly attacking anything the USATF does instead of supporting tougher doping rules.<

You're right in criticizing WADA, wrong in criticizing the IAAF. The IAAF rules already provide for a penalty of a MINIMUM of two years. There's nothing at all inconsistant with the USATF zero tolerance program.

[Vince]

Re: Overreaction?

>the IAAF rules provide for a minimum 2 year....there's nothing inconsistent with the USATF zero tolerance program<

Looking at the Doping Code, I see no use of the term "minimum" unless you are talking about non-performance enhancing drugs.

[huh?]

Re: Overreaction?

>>Looking at the Doping Code, I see no use of the term "minimum" unless you are talking about non-performance enhancing drugs.<

What "Doping Code" are you talking about? I was referring to IAAF Rules, and since you seem to have vision problems, let me point you to IAAF Rule 60.2(a)(i). The phrase "a minimum of two years" is right there.

[Vince]

Re: Overreaction?

Well my vision is truly failing, but not in this instance. Your 60.2, section blah, blah, paragraph blah, blah is from 2002, and the World Doping Code v.3.0 was accepted by the IAAF in March 2003.

Get your facts straight b4 starting your Ad Hominem attacks.