That is actually a really good idea. I never thought about that one. Seriously we can stop doping by making the consequences fit the crime. Maybe ban athletes for life rather than this 2 year crap.
That is actually a really good idea. I never thought about that one. Seriously we can stop doping by making the consequences fit the crime. Maybe ban athletes for life rather than this 2 year crap.
Free thinker brings up a much better point for legalization than saying 'just legalize it' to even the playing field. I'm not saying he/she is innocent or guilty of doping. And I wouldn't necessarily say that doping should be legalized.
This is a classic drug testing problem for companies and the reason extremely accurate tests are needed. People fired for a single positive drug test could have good reason to sue. Look at the issue from a probability stand point. I'm making these numbers up, and I'm not sure of the testing accuray.
Say the controversial testing procedure is for EPO 99% accurate, meaning that 1% of the tests come back wrong.
Assume doping occurs very mildly in running, say 3% of runners use.
On the first day of a meet, everyone is tested. There are 4 outcomes.
1) You dope and you are caught. 0.03*0.99=2.97% of runners
2) You dope and escape. 0.03*.01=0.97% of runners
3) You don't dope and are proven as such. 0.97*0.99=96.0% of runners
4) You don't dope but are called a doper. 0.97*0.01=0.97% of runners.
The testing agency lets everyone go who they call clean. The problems truly arise when they name users. Although the actual percentage of clean runners they call dopers is very low, it can be very likely that those who are singled out are actually clean. This makes the testing very suspect.
The percentage of supposed dopers that are actually clean is: 0.97/(0.97+2.97)=24.6%. This means that 1/4 of the people who are publicly called EPO users are actually clean. It's a very low percentage of the total runners at the meet, but it can still be career ruining for those 1 or 2 to be grouped with the real users.
Obviously, this rate changes according to the actual doping rate and the testing accuracy, but some surprising results can be seen by changing the numbers above.
If the doping rate stays the same and the test is only 97% accurate, then 1/2 of all people who are accused of using EPO are actually innocent. Same value if the doping rate is 1% with a 99% test accuracy. Even a 99.9% testing rate wrongly labels 10% of the supposed dopers at a 1% doping rate in the population.
Another point I forgot to make in my original post on this topic is that who is to say that by legalizing PEDs it won't make athletes want to take them even more? By this I mean, if athlete A starts taking EPO and it's working and times are becoming faster and workouts are getting better, would it be too much of a stretch to think that athlete might then say "hey, this is working, if I could get just a little bit more of a dose, I'd be even faster." In my opinion, this is a path we risk taking if PEDs are legalized and I think it's pretty evident that it could be pretty dangerous. We don't want people becoming lab rats or doing things that are dangerous to their health.
There can be certain standards set up for certain levels of allowed substances if PEDs are legalized but people will find ways to circumvent those too. The only way to truly level the field is to blood test, put more money into testing (the IOC isn't poor) and hit athletes in the pocket book. I'm not naive enough to think we can change the morality of all people so we must then come up with consequences that with truly deter people from using PEDs.
Capitol punishment is the answer. Just execute all dopers and drug promoters such as Chalie Francis and Lance Armstrong. Dope has ruined millions of lives. That'll send a message.
Seriously this new doping scandal in Cycling is insane. Really proves that all cyclist are already doped so why noty just legalize it so its safer.
The only answer