Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Should banned athletes be eligible for IAAF World Athlete of the Year?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,063 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »
    If someone goes to jail for a white collar crime they are not banned from working forever [stupid example I know, but you get the point, person is given a sentence, serves it, and should be clear then]

    Not suggesting they should be locked up or banned from working, and they should be free to carry on their lives. But as pointed out earlier, once a professional is banned from their profession for misconduct they are never going to be able to go back to working in that same position again. Thinking along the lines of lawyers, doctors etc.

    Now these sports people are not lawyers or doctors, but is their role as professional sports people actually any different? They are also at the top of their chosen field and held up as examples of what can be achieved if you do well and work hard at what you do. If you then mess up in that position you do not get a second chance.

    They are free to go and get work doing something else, but they should not be allowed back as professional sports people.


  • Options
    #33
    nerraw1111
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭nerraw1111


    It'd almost be a good thing if Gatlin won. Might embarrass them into doing something about it.

    If the effects of doping last for their sporting lifetime, it has to be life time bans.


  • Options
    #34
    youngrun
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭youngrun


    robinph wrote: »
    Not suggesting they should be locked up or banned from working, and they should be free to carry on their lives. But as pointed out earlier, once a professional is banned from their profession for misconduct they are never going to be able to go back to working in that same position again. Thinking along the lines of lawyers, doctors etc.

    Now these sports people are not lawyers or doctors, but is their role as professional sports people actually any different? They are also at the top of their chosen field and held up as examples of what can be achieved if you do well and work hard at what you do. If you then mess up in that position you do not get a second chance.

    They are free to go and get work doing something else, but they should not be allowed back as professional sports people.

    Plenty of cases where limits apply - eg company directors 5 year ban, solicitors can have varying bans/limits put on their work etc, generally most are allowed back once they have done their time, they lose out, they pay the price, their reputation and life is ruined , the same with athletes.
    If someone gets back after a huge ban and are clean , then why not let them back . Cant have life sentences for every crime in my view . Could have restrictions on them eg lose 50% of prizes etc .
    Surely extra motivation for those competing against them to beat them also.


  • Options
    #35
    sconhome
    Registered Users Posts: 5,468 ✭✭✭sconhome


    Interesting link this mornign from Ross Tucker on Twitter - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24167222
    Previous strength training with or without the use of anabolic steroids facilitates subsequent re-acquisition of muscle mass even after long intervening periods of inactivity.

    The effects of doping last a long time and have a legacy effect that allow ex-dopers an advantage even after a long layoff. Gatlins' performances are really front and centre on this discussion.

    "If you exercise, or take anabolic steroids, you get more nuclei and you get bigger muscles. If you take away the steroids, you lose the muscle mass, but the nuclei remain inside the muscle fibres. "

    There may not be doping going on but there has to be an advantage gained and remaining from past history. It makes a mockery of sport if a convicted doper is eligible to take an award away from a clean athlete. Medals aren't stripped from dopers for nothing.


  • Options
    #36
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,063 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    youngrun wrote: »
    Plenty of cases where limits apply - eg company directors 5 year ban, solicitors can have varying bans/limits put on their work etc, generally most are allowed back once they have done their time, they lose out, they pay the price, their reputation and life is ruined , the same with athletes.
    If someone gets back after a huge ban and are clean , then why not let them back . Cant have life sentences for every crime in my view . Could have restrictions on them eg lose 50% of prizes etc .
    Surely extra motivation for those competing against them to beat them also.

    Varying bans is perfectly acceptable and would have no problem with different lengths of ban being used for different circumstances. The basic starting point should be a lifetime ban though, then the athlete has to make a decent case for why they should be allowed back.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    sconhome
    Registered Users Posts: 5,468 ✭✭✭sconhome


    robinph wrote: »
    Varying bans is perfectly acceptable and would have no problem with different lengths of ban being used for different circumstances. The basic starting point should be a lifetime ban though, then the athlete has to make a decent case for why they should be allowed back.

    That's the right way, draconian penalty and you plead your innocence / case.

    WADA could learn a lot from the Prison Forum ;)


  • Options
    #38
    youngrun
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭youngrun


    AKW wrote: »
    That's the right way, draconian penalty and you plead your innocence / case.

    WADA could learn a lot from the Prison Forum ;)

    Life bans just are not going to happen . Would you say a similar thing for someone caught taking heroin or cheating in a college exam for e.g. ? Life sentence and plead your case then? Its way over the top and would never stand up in court which is where such a ban would no doubt end up being discussed.
    It is no doubt the ugly side of sport to see former dopers back but a major ban with certain restrictions should be enough of a penalty to deter and remove most athletes effectively for life, plus The four year ban is back in action next year , a future deterrent . The short bans for well known athletes I would be more concerned about ie those within last year.


  • Options
    #39
    sconhome
    Registered Users Posts: 5,468 ✭✭✭sconhome


    youngrun wrote: »
    Life bans just are not going to happen . Would you say a similar thing for someone caught taking heroin or cheating in a college exam for e.g. ? Life sentence and plead your case then? Its way over the top and would never stand up in court which is where such a ban would no doubt end up being discussed.
    It is no doubt the ugly side of sport to see former dopers back but a major ban with certain restrictions should be enough of a penalty to deter and remove most athletes effectively for life, plus The four year ban is back in action next year , a future deterrent . The short bans for well known athletes I would be more concerned about ie those within last year.

    I hear your points.

    The penalties are far, far too light. They should be severe enough to be a discouragement. Anyone doping has made a choice, a conscious decision to cheat and as such should not get away with a slap on the wrist.

    There are plenty of athletes making (or attempting to make) a living through honest competing. Whay should they be denied that which they have a right to because of someone cheating?

    If life bans aren't possible then why not 8 of 10 year bans which will effectively end their athletic career, take them out of the system and allow honest people to make their way?

    Imagine the appearance money Gatlin can demand as the fastest man in 2014? The fastest over 30 ever? Who is being denied that money?

    We all make choices in life. I could have choosen to take heroin, I didn't. I could have choosen to cheat in an exam, I didn't. If I had done either my life would be completely different* but I would have to live with the consequences of my actions.

    I'm sorry but I see cheating as black or white. There is no grey area in this. The cheated don't get second chances.




    *maybe should have cheated at a few exams :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #40
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,063 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    youngrun wrote: »
    Life bans just are not going to happen . Would you say a similar thing for someone caught taking heroin or cheating in a college exam for e.g. ? Life sentence and plead your case then? Its way over the top and would never stand up in court which is where such a ban would no doubt end up being discussed.
    It is no doubt the ugly side of sport to see former dopers back but a major ban with certain restrictions should be enough of a penalty to deter and remove most athletes effectively for life, plus The four year ban is back in action next year , a future deterrent . The short bans for well known athletes I would be more concerned about ie those within last year.

    Taking drugs recreationally is not equivalent to people taking drugs for cheating in sport. People are excluded from sitting exams due to cheating though.

    I don't see why it needs to stand up to anything in a court of law though. The only reason that lawyers can be involved at the moment is due to inconsistencies between the various governing bodies and they are therefore arguing the toss over which body has the final say. If all sports bodies just said "if you cheat then your are not permitted to take part in our sport" then there is nothing for any lawyers to get involved with.

    The rules of the sport are final and no court can overturn the interpretation of the offside rule for instance, or say that 110m hurdles should actually be an inch lower to help short people run over them. Just needs the rules of the sport to say no convicted drugs cheats may take part and that is the end of it. It's not discriminatory, it is not overly penalising anyone...it is just then the rule of the sport and nobody else gets to question it.

    If they want a sport where drugs are OK to be used then those people need to set up their own sport where it is permitted.


  • Options
    #41
    Chivito550
    Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    walshb wrote: »
    Renaldo makes a good point about MJ running fast times late in his career. I think he was 30 when he ran 19.32 and 33 when he broke the 400 record.

    Gatlin's lack of remorse and responsibility should have been penalized heavier.

    No, he was 30 when he won gold in Sydney, then he retired. He was 26 when he ran 19.32, and 29 when he ran 43.18.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,109 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    No, he was 30 when he won gold in Sydney, then he retired. He was 26 when he ran 19.32, and 29 when he ran 43.18.

    DOB is 13/09/67, which makes him 33 winning Sydney gold and nearly 32 running 43.18.


  • Options
    #43
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,584 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    DOB is 13/09/67, which makes him 33 winning Sydney gold and nearly 32 running 43.18.

    Almost 33 in Seville '99

    Edit: 32


  • Options
    #44
    Chivito550
    Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    DOB is 13/09/67, which makes him 33 winning Sydney gold and nearly 32 running 43.18.

    Yikes, genuinely thought he was 30 in Sydney, and 22 in Barcelona. What on earth was he at in his early 20s then. Later bloomer than I thought.


  • Options
    #45
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,584 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    BTW, interesting question I think: What would be more impressive, a 9.77 100 metres aged 31/32 or a sub 43.5 400?


  • Options
    #46
    Chivito550
    Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    walshb wrote: »
    BTW, interesting question I think: What would be more impressive, a 9.77 100 metres aged 31/32 or a sub 43.5 400?

    Well a 400m has a greater aerobic element to a 100m. Speed decreases with age quicker than endurance does, so IMO the 100m time at that age is more impressive/ suspect.


  • Options
    #47
    Nermal
    Registered Users Posts: 2,614 ✭✭✭Nermal


    Are athletes tested during their bans? If not, and knowing that steroids basically give you an edge for life...

    The hysterical dogpile on Gatlin is a bit much. You do all realise he was just unlucky enough to be caught, right? Do you really think anyone racing in a final with him is clean?


  • Options
    #48
    Netwerk Errer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 542 ✭✭✭Netwerk Errer


    Why don't life bans stand up in court? I seem to remember a guy called Lance Armstrong got a life ban from UCI/USADA. I have heard numerous people mentioning that life time bans are completely illegal since but Armstrong's case was never brought up in those articles or claims.

    Armstrong didn't even test positive and hadn't admitted to doping at that stage and he got a life ban. Surely, his case has set a legal precedent that allows life bans. All the other USPS riders were given the option of a 6 month ban for talking or a life ban for not. The same organisations were involved in that ban that govern track and field. WADA, USADA and the IOC.

    I doubt that they would have sanctioned a life ban if it opened them up to a lawsuit from Armstrong.


  • Options
    #49
    ecoli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,762 ✭✭✭✭ecoli


    Netwerk Errer wrote: »
    Why don't life bans stand up in court? I seem to remember a guy called Lance Armstrong got a life ban from UCI/USADA. I have heard numerous people mentioning that life time bans are completely illegal since but Armstrong's case was never brought up in those articles or claims.

    Armstrong didn't even test positive and hadn't admitted to doping at that stage and he got a life ban. Surely, his case has set a legal precedent that allows life bans. All the other USPS riders were given the option of a 6 month ban for talking or a life ban for not. The same organisations were involved in that ban that govern track and field. WADA, USADA and the IOC.

    I doubt that they would have sanctioned a life ban if it opened them up to a lawsuit from Armstrong.

    No because he accepted his ban unchallenged due to the fact that he was under criminal investigation (due to him being a member of the US Postal Service team).

    While strictly speaking he could challenge his life time ban the fact that it was proven that he lied under oath during the federal investigation means that CAS would throw it out.

    This is why Lance was recieved a life time ban while Pepe Martí and Pedro Celaya didn't.

    If you are to look at precendences Dwain Chambers legal battle with the BOC is the one which takes precedence


  • Options
    #50
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,063 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    ecoli wrote: »
    If you are to look at precendences Dwain Chambers legal battle with the BOC is the one which takes precedence

    But that was only challenged on the basis that the BOC stance didn't follow the same rules as the next body up the chain being the IOC.

    If the IOC said that they were applying lifetime bans then there would have been nothing for Chambers to challenge in court.


  • Options
    #51
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,584 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Nermal wrote: »
    Are athletes tested during their bans? If not, and knowing that steroids basically give you an edge for life...

    The hysterical dogpile on Gatlin is a bit much. You do all realise he was just unlucky enough to be caught, right? Do you really think anyone racing in a final with him is clean?

    So anyone now at the top is a cheat? That is some pessimistic attitude. I assume you believe that sub 9.8 is not humanly possible without PEDs?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    dna_leri
    Registered Users Posts: 2,623 ✭✭✭dna_leri


    IAAF have announced finalists for AOY:
    Barshim, Kimetto, Lavillenie
    Adams, G Dibaba, Schippers

    Seems fair enough, relatively clean bunch.
    Kudos to Harting for speaking out.


Advertisement