Shameful: Drug cheat Liza Hunter-Galvan wins $10,000 at 2015 Boston Marathon

WMM needs to institute lifetime bans for serious offenses, period. These cheaters are not paying back their previous winnings (debts) and need to have a serious consequence for their actions, especially when denied and lied about as in this case.

EPO Liza Hunter-Galvan wrote:

Maybe it's time for athletic governing bodies to recognize another competitive grouping. Let's call the first group natural and the second group Juiced. If an athlete has ever taken a enhancing drug then they move up into the juiced division. Simple.

For Liza Hunter-Galvan to be recognized as winning is repulsive. When caught doping she tried to lie about it When her B Sample also came back positive she tried to justify it and plead ignorance.

^^This.^^ Also agree with Precious Roy that we athletes have to make it clear to race organizers that proven cheaters are not welcome and should not be invited.

Better still: Lifetime bans and criminal prosecution for stolen winnings. If Galvan-Hunter lies and cheats to get access to your bank account and take $10,000, she would be prosecuted. The same principle should apply here.

rojo wrote:

No, not with intentional doping. To me, intentional doping (which EPO clearly is) should require a mandatory of life in imprisonment without parole. A lifetime ban from the sport.

Americans have such a weird view of punishment. She should go to jail for the rest of her life because she took EPO? She should be forever banned from athletics?

She got popped, served the punishment dictated by the authorities, and is now free to compete again.

It's this strange view of someone forever being tainted by their crime that makes the recidivism rate so high in America. Did you commit a crime? You will forever be a bad person with no hope for redemption. No job for you!

pubmed wrote:

science 101 wrote:

It's perfectly acceptable for animal study data to be extrapolated to humans.

Not really. Gundersen made it clear that he is speculating and he didn't have the data to back it up.

You both miss the point, which is that Galvan Hunter cheated by injecting EPO with the obvious hope that it would give her an unethical advantage that was as big as possible for as long as possible. At that point, she should be banned for life.

If she'd just won $10,000 by cutting the course, would she ever be invited back? Of course not. This sneakier for of cheating is actually worse than cutting the course from a moral point of view, because she not only cheated, she also lied about it and denied a legitimate victory to those who did not cheat.

Someone should tweet this out, it will be the only way they get shamed.

As others have said, a major marathon, especially like Boston needs to perform due diligence before handing out prize money.

Dingler wrote:

Sure, but convicted child molesters shouldn't be allowed to work in elementary schools, or convicted thiefs work the cash register.

And speeders shouldn't be allowed to drive. And anyone fired from a job should never be allowed to work again. And anyone who hits their kids should be castrated, and their children taken from them. Yeah, sure thing, Eynstein.

Agreed with Marchand, she continued to race would leave right away after races. Collect the prize and go. Seeing her at many NWI races you would know regardless she would win.

A previous poster said that those who have served a PEDs related suspension should be allowed to race but banned from winning prize money. That sounds like an excellent compromise to me.

Full natty brah, just hard work and dedication. haterz gonna hate

No, I don't think you understand how or why lucrative prize money is in road races to begin with.

First of all, the prize money is derived from a sponsor like John Hancock. Now imagine if Rita Jeptoo wins, after her two year ban. Every major sports headline will be "Former Drug Cheat wins Boston Marathon" with a picture of Rita Jeptoo breaking a John Hancock finish line tape. I wouldn't want to be the John Hancock PR person at that point. And I'm sure the PR team is not increasing it's budget if its a bad headline.

The money is not there for no reason, its there for promotion and PR of a company. Company's don't like to pay $1M to support an elite race that earns negative public perception. Despite whatever the bans are, the sport will start isolating itself from drug cheats in distance running. It will first start with organizations with big money like WMM. The doped athletes will just not be invited. Just look at Liza Hunter-Galvan's last race, the Dallas Marathon found out after the fact, and increased their stance on next year's prize money.

Americans don't have weird punishments, we are just capitalist. Cheating is bad for business bud!

Hardlyatall wrote:

A previous poster said that those who have served a PEDs related suspension should be allowed to race but banned from winning prize money. That sounds like an excellent compromise to me.

Give them free comps to all races, and double the awards.

not so fast. wrote:

She ran Dallas in December, a month after she won Auckland. She's 45. This is not excusable. Boston needs to have a re-evaluation of who they let into their elite start. In a few yrs Jeptoo could weasel her way into the elite start through the BAA free race number route, if they're truly this naive.

For a race the size of Boston, this may be asking too much. The logistics of screening runners would be very difficult. I agree with the intent though.

What is ridiculous is a Masters runner getting more than $20 and a trinket for winning. The race must make a killing every year if they are blowing $10,000+ on Masters.

Totally my $0.02, but Masters should be one-and-done doping bans.

because no one would want to be considered "juiced" (including race organizers for public perception reasons) you would want to have the two categories be "tested" and "untested"

EPO Liza Hunter-Galvan wrote:

Maybe it's time for athletic governing bodies to recognize another competitive grouping. Let's call the first group natural and the second group Juiced. If an athlete has ever taken a enhancing drug then they move up into the juiced division. Simple.

For Liza Hunter-Galvan to be recognized as winning is repulsive. When caught doping she tried to lie about it When her B Sample also came back positive she tried to justify it and plead ignorance.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Pressure-pain-drove-runner-to-use-drug-849078.php

She has the advantage of being paced by her husband during nearly every race.

anzac appeal wrote:

rojo wrote:

No, not with intentional doping. To me, intentional doping (which EPO clearly is) should require a mandatory of life in imprisonment without parole. A lifetime ban from the sport.

Americans have such a weird view of punishment. She should go to jail for the rest of her life because she took EPO? She should be forever banned from athletics?

She got popped, served the punishment dictated by the authorities, and is now free to compete again.

It's this strange view of someone forever being tainted by their crime that makes the recidivism rate so high in America. Did you commit a crime? You will forever be a bad person with no hope for redemption. No job for you!

Turn on your sarcasm detector.

Amerikano wrote:

Americans don't have weird punishments, we are just capitalist. Cheating is bad for business bud!

No, it's not. IT'S THE GREATEST BUSINESS EVER CREATED. Not kidding.

There's a reason the NCAA/BCS, IOC, USOC push hard to keep doping out of criminal law even though it is plainly fraud. Criminalizing doping is a clear threat to their "business." What's an event organizer to do?

I'm not sure if you are old, or work in some isolated job for too long or what, but "no rules" is the rules in athletics and most big American business.

I thought they already had. Anyone able to clarify this? I know that nyc has a "no former dopers" policy, but i thought the WMM had also adopted a similar policy. am I mistaken? even if they had, I suppose boston could have said that she wasn't part of the "elite" field, but rather the "(elite) masters" field, and thus not subject to those policies. If anyone knows of a source for WMM dopers/no dopers policy, please post it.

FWTXrun wrote:

....... You would think the WMM would adopt a similar policy.

http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/should-runners-who-have-served-drug-bans-be-welcomed-at-races

Check

No, I'm pretty sure Lance was given a lifetime ban for a reason. Barry Bonds was not re-signed after the SF Giants dropped him.

I would agree at least with this statement - If there's systematic doping/steroids that does not have definitive evidence and completely tarnished repuations, then yes the sports organization benefits from the gains. Once that switch is hit, the scandals break out, and the news gets involved, then NO - it's not good for business.

Nike dropped Lance how quickly once $hit hit the fan? Or did Nike sign Lance for a much bigger deal post-cheating scandal?

I'm all for her being allowed to race again, if she can show an independent audit of all race money she won while ostensibly cheating, and provide proof of remuneration to everyone she stole from while doing so.

I guess while I'm dreaming, she should also have to take at least 6 months completely off of running.