Discussion in 'Other Sports' started by allezfred, Oct 6, 2011.
I expected this ruling after US decided to fight the case.
Yes, excellent ruling! I don't give two shits about Merritt and his penis problems, but I support this.
Crime and punishment. You do the crime, you endure the punishment ... the lost competition and money, the lost reputation and goodwill, the lost "time in your prime". Then, you should be able to return ... shouldn't be punished on top of punishment.
I fully support the IOC checking itself and making sure that future bans and other penalties for the offenses committed are tough enough.
While I wish the federations themselves might do more to impose longer penalties or enforce their own bans, this ruling seems right in terms of which entities have authority to try and enforce punishments.
Absolute rules tend to be overly broad and have unintended consequences. However, the problem is that I don't have much confidence in a lot of federations and local committees, and the potential for inconsistent treatment is high.
Most of the tweets that I'm reading from athletes are of the opinion that cheats should be banned for life. I think this ruling really sends the wrong message.
Me too. It is a shame.
I'm all in favor of testing for doping and sanctioning athletes, but I can't see a lifetime ban for a first failure.
You hardly ever hear the drug testing agency speak about false positives, but as we test more and more athletes for lower and lower levels of banned substances, we are surely arriving at some true false positives. (From a statistical standpoint.) We are also facing a reality that too many food products (not supplements) contain adulterants that can cause athletes to test positive. If athletes are foolish enough to use supplements that end up being contaminated, too bad for them, but somebody consuming beef, pork, or rutabagas from the market shouldn't face penalties because some farmer did something illegal.
I'd be okay with having different levels of sanctions for different levels of different drugs to recognize that a smidgen of something banned is different than a high value result, and that a high value result is tremendously less likely to be the result of a false positive.
It is well known that people with certain auto-immune diseases, like lupus, can test false positive for syphilis. I would be surprised if there weren't other conditions that could trigger false positives, especially as the tests become more and more sensitive to smaller and smaller quantities.