convicted drug cheats returning to the Olympics

[Icm76]

Should the drug cheats be allowed to do their time and come back? There are legal issues regarding restriction of trade, so lifetime bans would be near impossible to enforce, but the current bans are surely far too short. I think the rational and liberal answer is that all criminals deserve a second chance after serving their sentence, so drug cheats should certainly not be treated more harshly than criminals. Yet I find myself constantly irritated and disgusted that so many of them are either competing or even getting air time on interviews.

I saw Marion Jones on Piers Morgan (CNN) and Dwain Chambers on BBC, I just think **** off, don't even put them in front of the cameras, they're worthless as athletes and pundits.

I like cycling, but it's constantly being damaged by the drug cheats. A convicted cheat (Vinokourov) won gold in the road race, and yesterday another cheat (Grégory Baugé) picked up silver in the sprint. They don't deserve it, and the road especially feels extremely devalued by the result.

 

[Icm76]

you can't deny someone a right to their livelihood

 

[Icm76]

I'd like a bit more detail on whether or not you can refuse someone entry to a sporting competition based on poor sportsmanship in the past.

I'm trying to find more info, but the IOC and BOA both lost test cases heard in the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

IOC preferred rule: anyone banned 6 months or more must miss the next games
BOA preferred rule: lifetime ban

Both being considered draconian, invalid and unenforceable. Both the IOC and BOA have to comply with the World Anti-Doping Code (WADA) which is considered very weak by many people. A lot of drug bans have been effectively reduced from a minimum of four years to a maximum of two years, hence all these convicted athletes now taking part in 2012.

I'm not aware of any challenges under EU human rights law, I don't think it has gone beyond the CAS ruling and WADA but I believe that if the CAS had upheld the lifetime ban an athlete would probably ultimately win a test case using human rights law (if only in the EU.)

Surely they can still go out and get a job? Anyway, a lifetime ban from the Olympics isn't denying their right to their livelihood, just denying them a chance to win the greatest honour they can in their sport - A right I believe people give up when they cheat.

It's not that simple, individuals are entitled to earn the best living they can and are entitled to justice in the workplace. An automatic lifetime ban cannot be considered justice.

 

[Icm76]

what a load of rubbish your post is...

I can see you've thought this through thoroughly, you make a persuasive argument.

Do you still feel it's fair that athletes come back if they've gained a permanent advantage due to permanent physiological changes as a result of drug enhancement.

Are you a Utd fan? Rio is an asshat and deserved his ban (he may have made an honest mistake, he may have been high/recently used recreational drugs) but let's not ignore the differences between football and athletics. Performance enhancing drugs can massively improve athletic performance and turn also rans into winners. This is not such a problem in sports like football, and indeed the extensive testing has shown that the drug scandals in football are mostly due to recreational drugs. Contrast this with the cyclist Baugé who missed more than one drug test, deeply suspicious in itself, more so with the widespread drug cheating problems in cycling. Thanks to WADA and weak sanctions he was competing in the Olympics.

Contador's six month ban ended today. Anyone believe the contaminated meat story? even after 10,000 samples of meat were tested and no trace of similar contaminant was found?

You think because athletes are caught they are all genuinely repentant? I'm damn sure they're all sorry they got caught, but quite a few cheat again and get caught again.

its time for u bitter people to move on

Thanks for the insults, but try reading my post again. I said that the rational thing is to allow a second chance, even though I personally I want longer bans and stronger sanctions than the current system.

 

[Icm76]

gregory bauge has never been banned, he missed a drugs test.

He was suspended for one year, all results for 2011 were stricken from the record and he was stripped of the World Track Championship title: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bauge-and-france-lose-world-track-titles

There were two violations “regarding rider availability” and one missed test, all within 18 months.

So if I worked as...
...same sort of consequences as anybody else.

Nobody has yet mentioned that sex offenders may never work with children, nobody has a problem with that being a lifetime ban. Another example is individuals can be banned from being company directors.

I don't know how the legislators and lawyers decide was is fair and just in all these different types of cases, but maybe the difference with some of these other bans is that they are not permanent and may be considered appropriate to the crime. It may also be that athletes cannot earn their trade anywhere else, whereas those guilty of certain financial crimes may be able to earn a good living elsewhere.

 

[Icm76]

what i meant was he was never banned for positive tests

missing tests.............read into that what you will

fair enough, and I wanted to point out that it was a pattern and rather more serious than Rio's one off.

Why do you think no one has mentioned that?

I half expected someone would, so I decided to raise it in a non-sensationalist way as one of the examples why there are different levels of severity that make appropriate bans - I've seen the argument made before that "lifetime sanctions are applied elsewhere, so why not for sports cheats?" it's obviously on a whole different level and you can't compare oranges and apples. As much as any of us despise the drug cheats, their crimes are less serious than financial crimes, and obviously much less serious than sex offenders.