Jump to content

Doping Bans


Guardian

Recommended Posts

Looks like WADA may overhaul the length of time for athletes, who are caught with doping for performance enhancement, from 2 to a 4-year minimum. Also, ONE test, instead of using the two (the A and B samples) could determine that ban:

Link: BBC: Doping Bans Could Face Overhaul

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Only testing one sample is not right. Even if the vast majority of A and B samples give the same result, the fact that even a few, albeit high profile cases have produced different test results from the two samples shows that what has been regarded as due process up until now must still be followed.

As far as lengthening the minimum ban is concerned, I have to say I'm not sure. I can understand why people would sympathise with the view that extending the term would really hurt the athletes concerned. But, two years is still a hugely significant chunk of any athlete's career. I'm not convinced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To all those who aren't fans of Pound, it looks like his successor at WADA is now clear:

MONTREAL, Nov 20, 2006 (AFP) - French sports minister Jean-Francois Lamour was on Monday elected vice-president of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

The two-time Olympic fencing champion was unopposed and elected by a show of hands.

Lamour, 50, who was endorsed by the Council of Europe for the post, thanked members for the confidence shown in him and promised ``to work to strengthen WADA''.

Current WADA president Dick Pound's mandate runs until November 2007 with Lamour now in line to succeed the Canadian.

Lamour, a gold medallist at the 1984 Olympics and four years later in Seoul, became Sports Minister in 2002.

AFP

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope he likes Montreal, if he is going to be the next WADA leader. I remembered it so well that Montreal won the bid for the WADA HQ status by one vote then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

I bet this news is reverberating at WADA quietly:

Link: CBC: East German Doping Victims To Get Compensation

Man, I hope I don't have to correct myself here because the URL address here has a spelling error in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Don't know if this was a coincidence or not, but Rogge had something to say about doping in a symposium in the Olympic Museum (Lausanne).

Link: IOC: IOC President Calls For Unity In The Fight Against Doping

Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you guys think of these possible WADA changes for athletes who cheat through doping?

BBC: WADA Plans To Increase Drug Bans

I would certainly welcome a standard suspension period across sports for this, but I think a year is too much, particularly when you still only give out two year bans for doping offences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

That is what I want to know myself. It is not like that some governments could even afford such a "perk."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Four years is fine _ that would really hurt the cheats. But only ONE sample _ I think they need to follow due procedure and to be fair, checkable and verifiable makes that a bit harsh.

I agree R 4 years is fine with me too...but one sample leaves too much room for false positives or false negatives, cross contamination samples and other things that go wrong in the lab....

what about incentives to have other team mates let a safe panel know of suspected drug use?

Some see this as ratting I see it as responsible.....of course only if done out of integrity and not personal interest or vendetta.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Only testing one sample is not right. Even if the vast majority of A and B samples give the same result, the fact that even a few, albeit high profile cases have produced different test results from the two samples shows that what has been regarded as due process up until now must still be followed.

As far as lengthening the minimum ban is concerned, I have to say I'm not sure. I can understand why people would sympathise with the view that extending the term would really hurt the athletes concerned. But, two years is still a hugely significant chunk of any athlete's career. I'm not convinced.

Agreed on testing issues.

The time ban-It goes to the debate of lengthier sentences as a deterrent...we can look at the criminal system .....do longer punishment deter the act?

Being as you say time is probably much like a model's time : they ripen fairly early in their careers.

Right now fashion locations like Milan are banning models below their BMI..that time is indefinite ..meaning until they are at a BMI as dictates and monitored by a doctor ....so no time frame is set as it is individual....can such a thing be applied here?

I dont see how it could.

So given that an athletes would know that he/she could not play with their time as their carreers will be over fast as they sit on the 'benches' longer I think it has a strong deterring element.... time will tell ( no pun intended)

Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you guys think of these possible WADA changes for athletes who cheat through doping?

BBC: WADA Plans To Increase Drug Bans

G, it is clearly an issue of discretion and that always creates unfairness. The athletic competition is too fierce to have such issues of inconsistent banning times for same offense be in contention too....The good thing is there is an ARBITRATION BOARD but as with all things: it is only as ethical as those who run it...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was reading an article about FIFA not accepting WADA and doping tests.

I think the UCI is the other one, despite having that Landis affair still going on. Besides, on that front, Pound scoffs at his critics from his comments about Lance Armstrong.

Link: CBC: Pound Unfazed By IOC Reprimand For Comments Regarding Lance Armstrong

Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed on testing issues.

The time ban-It goes to the debate of lengthier sentences as a deterrent...we can look at the criminal system .....do longer punishment deter the act?

Being as you say time is probably much like a model's time : they ripen fairly early in their careers.

Right now fashion locations like Milan are banning models below their BMI..that time is indefinite ..meaning until they are at a BMI as dictates and monitored by a doctor ....so no time frame is set as it is individual....can such a thing be applied here?

I dont see how it could.

So given that an athletes would know that he/she could not play with their time as their carreers will be over fast as they sit on the 'benches' longer I think it has a strong deterring element.... time will tell ( no pun intended)

I don't really see the link between sport and modelling, but there you go.

I simply don't think a four year ban, on a first offence, is acceptable. Take a 25 year old athlete as an example. Ban him for four years, on a first offence, and he comes back at 29, past his peak and his career at the top level potentially all but over.

An extreme example I know, but that's the problem with this system. Whatever system they go for, it has to be clear and without exception. I would favour two years for a first offence, life for a second. No ifs, no buts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really see the link between sport and modelling, but there you go.

I simply don't think a four year ban, on a first offence, is acceptable. Take a 25 year old athlete as an example. Ban him for four years, on a first offence, and he comes back at 29, past his peak and his career at the top level potentially all but over.

An extreme example I know, but that's the problem with this system. Whatever system they go for, it has to be clear and without exception. I would favour two years for a first offence, life for a second. No ifs, no buts.

A, the connection between sporting and modelling would be on the banning.

I think 4 years is okay for a first offense, the athletes are not stupid, they know what it is all about being the altered state these drugs create IS about the sporting they do. It should be taken seriously at every offense..if serious enough on the first offense it will act as a strong deterrent for others as well....we know even in our judicial system when 'sentencing' is lenient...there is no deterent value at all, in fact, I would argue that it emboldens and encourages the act to repeat itself....

A, the athlete made the choice at 25 to take the drugs knowing better..that is the gamble he/she took.....too bad so sad...for them.

But I am not without compromise on occasion..I will accept your 2 year on first time offense and life for second....

next case

LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...