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

ecoli

IAAF have announced the nominations for this year with no real surprises

http://www.iaaf.org/gala/athlete-of-the-year

Amongst the current list there are three athletes who have faced bans in the past, also you have the current female holder of the award being an athlete who has faced a ban.Whatever about the legality of life time bans should they be eligible for this award where the criteria can be controlled by the powers that be?

(Don't want a doping speculation thread to spawn here so please trolls keep walking)

tang1

No way Gatlin should be eligible for this, hes served two bans if i'm correct. Just checked it was a four year ban he received and wasnt banned twice.

Chivito550

It's an all or nothing thing really. If they are eligible to race, claim prize money etc, then being eligible for this Mickey Mouse award isn't exactly going to do any further damage. The damage is done by letting them compete in the first place.

A joke of an award. All Bolt has to do is tie his shoelaces and he wins the thing. Thankfully because he hasn't really raced this year, somebody who is actually deserving of the title will take it home, before Bolt claims it again in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Barshim would be the deserving winner of the men's IMO.

Sacksian

Very surprised not to see Ndiku nominated.

He won gold at the World Indoors (3000m), African Champs (5000m), Diamond League (5000m), Commonwealth Games (5000m) and continental cup (3000m) - seems like a pretty good year!

nerraw1111

One nominated athlete has asked to be removed from list due to Gatling.

"I find the nomination great. Yet I stand for nomination with a former doping offender, and that is the reason for my waiver."

Olympic discus champion Robert Harting


http://www.sportal.com.au/article/news/harting-asks-for-athlete-of-the-year-award-omission/38fow51jslga1skeo5ropjty2

Netwerk Errer

Chivito550 wrote: »

Barshim would be the deserving winner of the men's IMO.

It's all in the future for him. I have never seen any HJer near as explosive as him.

He even makes Boundarenko look like Robert Harding trying to clear the sprint hurdles.

pconn062

Have to agree with Chivito, if the athlete is currently presumed to be clean they have the right to be put forward for the award as it currently stands. However it all goes back to an overall flaw in the punishment system for convicted dopers. As for Gatlin, I really wish he would fall into a big hole and never crawl out.

robinph

They shouldn't be eligible for the award.

Unfortunately they have allowed them to compete again though so they have to be able to be put forward for the award. Simple way of solving the problem without causing any inconsistencies between people competing and being eligible for award...Give them a proper lifetime ban in the first place, or at least something more appropriate than what is effectively 1/2 a competition cycle of ban so amounts to next to nothing at present.

sconhome

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/29510575

Kristian Gundersen, Professor of Physiology at the University of Oslo, told BBC Sport: "I think it is likely that effects could be lifelong or at least lasting decades in humans.

Lifetime ban, simple solution, no excuses.

adrian522

AKW wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/29510575



Lifetime ban, simple solution, no excuses.

I have to agree, however I find it crazy that some other sports treat PED's so lightly.

In the NFL a suspension under the PED policy can be as little as 2 games, up to 4 for a first offense, double that for a second. And they never announce what substance the test was failed on. They are also only now starting to test for HGH.

Other sports like tennis, players will just disappear for a certain length of time or a phantom injury will be invented rather than announce they are serving a drugs ban.

youngrun

Lifetime ban, simple solution, no excuses.

Not legal, and not going to happen

Per Wada on A BBC article I cant post !
bbc sport article online number 28319312

4 year bans are hefty and at the top level few if any could come back from that . Gatlin is an exception and clearly has balls of steel and the talent and application to match . Won every race he ran last year.
But its A PR nightmare to nominate him.. .

robinph

4 year bans are hefty and at the top level few if any could come back from that

That's the point though. It shouldn't be possible to come back from a drugs ban and be able to compete at the top level again.

Once banned the best they should be able to hope for is to run in some masters event many years later and then spend the rest of their time telling everyone what an idiot they were and they screwed up their life.

walshb

robinph wrote: »

That's the point though. It shouldn't be possible to come back from a drugs ban and be able to compete at the top level again.
.

Why not? Do you mean that they should be restricted from entering into elite events?

robinph

walshb wrote: »

Why not? Do you mean that they should be restricted from entering into elite events?

The ban should be long enough that it is actually a punishment and something they should be worried about risking their career for. Depending on the exact dates of them getting caught they get caught at one championship, get two year ban, compete again at next one after only really missing one season.

walshb

robinph wrote: »

The ban should be long enough that it is actually a punishment and something they should be worried about risking their career for. Depending on the exact dates of them getting caught they get caught at one championship, get two year ban, compete again at next one after only really missing one season.

So above 4 years then in your view.

robinph

walshb wrote: »

So above 4 years then in your view.

Absolute minimum should be 4 years, but the default position should be lifetime ban and work back from that if there is some particular reason for being lenient. Should never be less than 4 years though.

walshb

robinph wrote: »

Absolute minimum should be 4 years, but the default position should be lifetime ban and work back from that if there is some particular reason for being lenient. Should never be less than 4 years though.

Problem is the amount of different types of cheating that happens. It's far too muddled a process. I think 4 years for a first offence is stiff. I believe everyone deserves a chance. 2nd doping offence should be life ban and any achievements and records taken away.

robinph

walshb wrote: »

Problem is the amount of different types of cheating that happens. It's far too muddled a process. I think 4 years for a first offence is stiff. I believe everyone deserves a chance. 2nd doping offence should be life ban and any achievements and records taken away.

The person caught needs to provide reasons why it shouldn't be a lifetime ban. The authorities should not need to justify why it should be more than a minimal 2 year ban, its the accused that needs to make their case for getting a lighter sentence.

4 years only sounds like a stiff penalty at the moment because the bar is currently set so low with effectively no penalty, they just get one year off competing which is relatively normal in any career if you get injured for a bit.

youngrun

4 years is a long long time in athletics, anyone coming back and competing at the very top level has some serious tenacity and ability .

Its certainly not pretty, not ideal for sport and not many will agree with their return but that is the situation , can we forgive and forget ? Are there any benefits to the return of Gatlin, Chambers et al?

robinph

youngrun wrote: »

can we forgive and forget ?

No.

youngrun wrote: »

Are there any benefits to the return of Gatlin, Chambers et al?

No

There is a benefit for them to be involved in the sport still, such as training and education of what not to do. But they should no way be allowed to compete and win medals or any recognition as athletes.

youngrun

robinph wrote: »

No.



No

There is a benefit for them to be involved in the sport still, such as training and education of what not to do. But they should no way be allowed to compete and win medals or any recognition as athletes.

Would they do that though? Unlikely

More likely they would if they were back competing , as they are....

Are criminals out of prison free men?

RayCun

youngrun wrote: »

Are criminals out of prison free men?

Lawyers can be disbarred for life, accountants no longer be recognised, doctors lose their licences.
Athletes could be ineligible for IAAF competition, or for grants.

robinph

youngrun wrote: »

Would they do that though? Unlikely

More likely they would if they were back competing , as they are....

Are criminals out of prison free men?

Chambers has actually sounded a bit more aware of what he did recently when he was talking in relation to his own kids now growing up and starting to become aware.
Admittedly we are not exposed to any US media coverage of Gatlin in the same way, but he doesn't strike me as being humble in anyway regarding his behavior.

People who have been convicted of a crime and are then released from prison are free. But if their crime was related to the job they had at the time you won't find them back working in the same field again. You will find people done for fraud though working on fraud prevention, or drug addicts working in rehab centers etc.

These athletes are convicted drug cheats. They should be working to prevent others getting involved in taking drugs for cheating in competition now and teaching people to compete cleanly, and not carrying on as if nothing happened.

youngrun

RayCun wrote: »

Lawyers can be disbarred for life, accountants no longer be recognised, doctors lose their licences.
Athletes could be ineligible for IAAF competition, or for grants.

Does not seem to be the case that this is enforceable- Wada view

"Our advice was that [life bans] would be challenged and would not be sustainable in law," the Wada president told BBC Sport.
Wada instead agreed to a new code which will double the standard suspension for dopers from two to four years from January 2015.
"A four-year penalty will stand up in court and takes a person out of the cycle of an Olympic Games," said Reedie, who was appointed Wada president in November 2013.

RayCun

youngrun wrote: »

Does not seem to be the case that this is enforceable- Wada view

there is a difference between saying something is unenforceable, and saying there are benefits to people returning

robinph

youngrun wrote: »

Does not seem to be the case that this is enforceable- Wada view

"Our advice was that [life bans] would be challenged and would not be sustainable in law," the Wada president told BBC Sport.
Wada instead agreed to a new code which will double the standard suspension for dopers from two to four years from January 2015.
"A four-year penalty will stand up in court and takes a person out of the cycle of an Olympic Games," said Reedie, who was appointed Wada president in November 2013.

I don't see what law it would not be sustainable under though if the various bodies would just agree on the same thing. The governing body of the sport sets the laws for competing in that sport. There is no higher body that can overrule them, their sport, their rules.

Once the sport is not being discriminatory, on gender or race for example, then there isn't anything that any other court should be able to overrule them on.

youngrun

robinph wrote: »

I don't see what law it would not be sustainable under though if the various bodies would just agree on the same thing. The governing body of the sport sets the laws for competing in that sport. There is no higher body that can overrule them, their sport, their rules.

Once the sport is not being discriminatory, on gender or race for example, then there isn't anything that any other court should be able to overrule them on.

Thats per WADA, so I assume IAAF can as you say set their own rules. Probably a jump from 2 to 4 years was seen as enough for now.
Plus the stronger testing controls, blood passports, etc which seem to have worked if you take the average track times and world records being set in most track ad field events over the last few years versus the not so distant past.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

Once the sport is not being discriminatory, on gender or race for example, then there isn't anything that any other court should be able to overrule them on.

Actually, I'm not sure that being discriminatory would even be enough for another court to overrule a sporting body. Afterall, it was only in the last couple of weeks that the Royal and Ancient voted to let girls play golf. There was no higher court telling them to do so.

Chivito550

Super article on the Gatlin fiasco here: http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/29515182

walshb

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.

tHE vAGGABOND

Just to be somewhat objective, we all might hate sentences for their crimes..

But they were given 2 years or whatever, and they served that crime. So therefore why not let them go again?

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?