DanM wrote:
"You lose EVERYTHING. We have to assume you were doping your whole career. "
Retroactively convict a person of earlier crimes based on being guilty of a different crime later on ?
That'll be 500 speeding tickets for you at $200 apiece. We have to assume you were speeding every time you drove on this road.
Yikes. Gladwell is considered to be an enlightened thinker. He sounds like a dangerous crank.
It shouldn't invalidate previous negative tests. But how much do negative tests show?
Assume I fail a drug test in 2020. I have also been testing once in 2015 and once in 2016 and these tests were negative. Does that prove I wasn't taking drugs in 2015 and 2016, or was I possibly taking drugs before and/or after the tests? Also, is it possible I was able to bribe the officials, pass someone else's sample, or that the was an error in the laboratory? If the answer is assumed to be "no" then perhaps it's fair to assume that I started taking drugs in 2017.
If we can't assume a drug taker has been taking drugs for some time, is it even warranted to assume that the athlete has benefited from drugs? Maybe he just started taking drugs and the benefits won't kick in until the next race. So, ban him for some future time period, but do not take away any medals or performances!
Taking performance enhancing drugs is different to speeding for several reasons. If I want to get somewhere quickly today then I benefit today if I exceed the speed limit. It doesn't mean I have been doing so for years. But if I'm taking performance enhancing drugs just once then I risk getting caught for very little benefit. It's far more likely that I have taken drugs numerous times.
If I'm caught driving a little faster than the speed limit, the risk that I would harm anyone is very low, so a small fine is appropriate. If I'm vastly exceeding the limit, driving dangerously, under the influence or hit or kill someone, I deserve a much harsher punishment. A large proportion of drivers have been caught speeding and many others have exceeded the limit but not been caught. It doesn't mean you are a very bad or dangerous driver. But there probably aren't numerous athletes taking illegal performance enhancing drugs in very small amounts just once. Anyway there is no such distinction in performance enhancing drug use. Using a small amount of drugs might make a 0.01 difference, which could be the difference between medals, which is serious in sport.
People receive fines for speeding and sometimes jail time for more serious driving offences. It would be wrong for the punishment for these crimes to be disproportionate. But are drug takers fined, or do they just have to give back winnings? I think it would be wrong if drug takers had to pay fines, but I don't see a problem with race organisers having a clause that entrants agree to repay winnings, so they can be paid to the rightful winners, if they are caught cheating.