Why is Shelby allowed to compete after using PEDs, taking advantage of an ongoing biological advantage after having trained with the use of PEDs? Why is Shelby, and anyone who has ever tested positive for PEDs, allowed to compete given their undeniable biological advantages? The sport has turned towards banning those with unfair, ongoing biological advantages, but PED users are exempt from this scrutiny for some reason.
The rule is bans are a set amount of time, not indefinite. Shelby's was 4 years, which I think was too short.
The 4 year ban hasn't deterred doping, perhaps it should be a lifetime ban for the first offense.
We can't really know if a four year ban hasn't deterred doping. It certainly hasn't gotten doping out of the sport but we don't know how many people there are who aren't doping because they just believe it's wrong versus how many are not doping for fear of a four year ban. Logically you would think a longer ban would be more of a deterrant but I expect even a lifetime ban would not deter some people who'd plan on getting in a few really successful races and paydays in hopes of getting away with it forever or at least for a while.
The rule is bans are a set amount of time, not indefinite. Shelby's was 4 years, which I think was too short.
The 4 year ban hasn't deterred doping, perhaps it should be a lifetime ban for the first offense.
We can't really know if a four year ban hasn't deterred doping. It certainly hasn't gotten doping out of the sport but we don't know how many people there are who aren't doping because they just believe it's wrong versus how many are not doping for fear of a four year ban. Logically you would think a longer ban would be more of a deterrant but I expect even a lifetime ban would not deter some people who'd plan on getting in a few really successful races and paydays in hopes of getting away with it forever or at least for a while.
Good call. It just seems doping is rampant, but perhaps it would be even more so if the ban were shorter. Not many athletes will have Shelby's privilege to be able to return after 4 years.
We can't really know if a four year ban hasn't deterred doping. It certainly hasn't gotten doping out of the sport but we don't know how many people there are who aren't doping because they just believe it's wrong versus how many are not doping for fear of a four year ban. Logically you would think a longer ban would be more of a deterrant but I expect even a lifetime ban would not deter some people who'd plan on getting in a few really successful races and paydays in hopes of getting away with it forever or at least for a while.
Good call. It just seems doping is rampant, but perhaps it would be even more so if the ban were shorter. Not many athletes will have Shelby's privilege to be able to return after 4 years.
It would help if you stopped telling young folks that drugs will make them faster.
We can't really know if a four year ban hasn't deterred doping. It certainly hasn't gotten doping out of the sport but we don't know how many people there are who aren't doping because they just believe it's wrong versus how many are not doping for fear of a four year ban. Logically you would think a longer ban would be more of a deterrant but I expect even a lifetime ban would not deter some people who'd plan on getting in a few really successful races and paydays in hopes of getting away with it forever or at least for a while.
Good call. It just seems doping is rampant, but perhaps it would be even more so if the ban were shorter. Not many athletes will have Shelby's privilege to be able to return after 4 years.
A pretty normal reaction to serious violation of rules or laws is to hand out fairly harsh punishments and if the violation persists to make the punishment more harsh. And that can work. But it also can backfire. Part of the lore of our Old West was that stealing a horse was a hanging offense and there were people hanged for horse theft. But that penalty also made it hard for DAs to get convictions even in cases where the evidence showed a very likely possibility of guilt. It turns out that most jurors weren't cold blooded enough to vote to kill someone for stealing a horse even when there was very convincing evidence so they'd simply vote "not guilty" when the only alternative was going to get someone killed. Most of those hanged for horse theft were people who had commited other crimes but not been convicted.
If you kind of transfer this principle to our sport I think a similar dynamic turns up. The people running the sport want, NEED, the really high profile athletes. No one wanted Usain Bolt banned at all let along for a couple Olympiads or for life, and I'm not suggesting he was taking stuff, just that if he had the slight likelihood of being suspended if he'd been caught would make it less likely that he'd have been convicted. On the other hand a semi harsh ban for a lesser profiled runner like Houlihan "proves" that officials are trying to clean up the sport while not really getting rid of someone who's going to sell tickets or get a fatter TV deal.
Good call. It just seems doping is rampant, but perhaps it would be even more so if the ban were shorter. Not many athletes will have Shelby's privilege to be able to return after 4 years.
A pretty normal reaction to serious violation of rules or laws is to hand out fairly harsh punishments and if the violation persists to make the punishment more harsh. And that can work. But it also can backfire. Part of the lore of our Old West was that stealing a horse was a hanging offense and there were people hanged for horse theft. But that penalty also made it hard for DAs to get convictions even in cases where the evidence showed a very likely possibility of guilt. It turns out that most jurors weren't cold blooded enough to vote to kill someone for stealing a horse even when there was very convincing evidence so they'd simply vote "not guilty" when the only alternative was going to get someone killed. Most of those hanged for horse theft were people who had commited other crimes but not been convicted.
If you kind of transfer this principle to our sport I think a similar dynamic turns up. The people running the sport want, NEED, the really high profile athletes. No one wanted Usain Bolt banned at all let along for a couple Olympiads or for life, and I'm not suggesting he was taking stuff, just that if he had the slight likelihood of being suspended if he'd been caught would make it less likely that he'd have been convicted. On the other hand a semi harsh ban for a lesser profiled runner like Houlihan "proves" that officials are trying to clean up the sport while not really getting rid of someone who's going to sell tickets or get a fatter TV deal.
I wouldn't have any problem if Kenya or Ethiopia were banned from the sport. And I think most serious running fans feel the same.
A pretty normal reaction to serious violation of rules or laws is to hand out fairly harsh punishments and if the violation persists to make the punishment more harsh. And that can work. But it also can backfire. Part of the lore of our Old West was that stealing a horse was a hanging offense and there were people hanged for horse theft. But that penalty also made it hard for DAs to get convictions even in cases where the evidence showed a very likely possibility of guilt. It turns out that most jurors weren't cold blooded enough to vote to kill someone for stealing a horse even when there was very convincing evidence so they'd simply vote "not guilty" when the only alternative was going to get someone killed. Most of those hanged for horse theft were people who had commited other crimes but not been convicted.
If you kind of transfer this principle to our sport I think a similar dynamic turns up. The people running the sport want, NEED, the really high profile athletes. No one wanted Usain Bolt banned at all let along for a couple Olympiads or for life, and I'm not suggesting he was taking stuff, just that if he had the slight likelihood of being suspended if he'd been caught would make it less likely that he'd have been convicted. On the other hand a semi harsh ban for a lesser profiled runner like Houlihan "proves" that officials are trying to clean up the sport while not really getting rid of someone who's going to sell tickets or get a fatter TV deal.
I wouldn't have any problem if Kenya or Ethiopia were banned from the sport. And I think most serious running fans feel the same.
Why is Shelby allowed to compete after using PEDs, taking advantage of an ongoing biological advantage after having trained with the use of PEDs? Why is Shelby, and anyone who has ever tested positive for PEDs, allowed to compete given their undeniable biological advantages? The sport has turned towards banning those with unfair, ongoing biological advantages, but PED users are exempt from this scrutiny for some reason.
Mainly because the ban was for 4 years, and testing positive for a PED does not necessarily mean there was an undeniable biological advantage.
"At Tacking Doping in Sport 2013, Athlete Ombudsman for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) John Ruger admitted that between 40% and 60% of US doping cases are inadvertent – i.e. non-intentional."
WADA's mission is to protect innocent athletes, not issue lifetime bans to athletes with no intention of cheating, especially when any alleged performance benefit is highly questionable.
Don't take my word for it though. What does the "sportsscientist" Prof. Ross Tucker say? He wrote several related articles at his "sportsscientists" website, during high profile discussions of Dwain Chambers and Justin Gatlin.
In 2008, he wrote "Lifetime bans for drug cheats?" where he suspected that increasing the ban will increase appeitite and intensity of the legal challenges and potentially backfire, allowing more cheats to go free.
In 2012, he elaborated further in "The lifetime ban for doping: Debate continued", adding concerns about the reliability of the science to reliably detect cheating, balancing the risk of false convictions with the harsh penalty, and also considered the moral question of giving dopers a second chance.
He concluded with "But practically, as of May 2012, I don’t believe the science of anti-doping is quite up to the legal challenge that a four-year ban would bring to the table (and to the courtroom), let alone a life-time ban."
In 2015, in "The Gatlin Dilemma", he wrote "Lifetime bans, while theoretically a good idea, change the entire 'game' after the positive test, because of those possibilities, and I don’t think the legal system can, at this stage, deal with that."
Similarly, "The Sports Integrity Initiative" takes another detailed look at the question in "Why life bans for doping will not work", using the example of Gatlin's return, and issues with other cases, raising many of the same issues and more.
A pretty normal reaction to serious violation of rules or laws is to hand out fairly harsh punishments and if the violation persists to make the punishment more harsh. And that can work. But it also can backfire. Part of the lore of our Old West was that stealing a horse was a hanging offense and there were people hanged for horse theft. But that penalty also made it hard for DAs to get convictions even in cases where the evidence showed a very likely possibility of guilt. It turns out that most jurors weren't cold blooded enough to vote to kill someone for stealing a horse even when there was very convincing evidence so they'd simply vote "not guilty" when the only alternative was going to get someone killed. Most of those hanged for horse theft were people who had commited other crimes but not been convicted.
If you kind of transfer this principle to our sport I think a similar dynamic turns up. The people running the sport want, NEED, the really high profile athletes. No one wanted Usain Bolt banned at all let along for a couple Olympiads or for life, and I'm not suggesting he was taking stuff, just that if he had the slight likelihood of being suspended if he'd been caught would make it less likely that he'd have been convicted. On the other hand a semi harsh ban for a lesser profiled runner like Houlihan "proves" that officials are trying to clean up the sport while not really getting rid of someone who's going to sell tickets or get a fatter TV deal.
I wouldn't have any problem if Kenya or Ethiopia were banned from the sport. And I think most serious running fans feel the same.
I don’t think that’s true at all. Kiplimo, Wanyonyi and many others, are popular on LRC.
Why is Shelby allowed to compete after using PEDs, taking advantage of an ongoing biological advantage after having trained with the use of PEDs? Why is Shelby, and anyone who has ever tested positive for PEDs, allowed to compete given their undeniable biological advantages? The sport has turned towards banning those with unfair, ongoing biological advantages, but PED users are exempt from this scrutiny for some reason.
It shouldn’t be just 4 years it should be $10k - $1million fine for each occurrence or whereabout failure depend of the athletes and coach of the poorest countries getting the lower amount and athletes and coach from richer countries getting the maximum amount, plus a 1 year ban per whereabout failure and 10 years for each failed test.
Banning the athlete and coach might stop them when their earnings are being hit
Why is Shelby allowed to compete after using PEDs, taking advantage of an ongoing biological advantage after having trained with the use of PEDs? Why is Shelby, and anyone who has ever tested positive for PEDs, allowed to compete given their undeniable biological advantages? The sport has turned towards banning those with unfair, ongoing biological advantages, but PED users are exempt from this scrutiny for some reason.
It shouldn’t be just 4 years it should be $10k - $1million fine for each occurrence or whereabout failure depend of the athletes and coach of the poorest countries getting the lower amount and athletes and coach from richer countries getting the maximum amount, plus a 1 year ban per whereabout failure and 10 years for each failed test.
Banning the athlete and coach might stop them when their earnings are being hit
Actually it should extend to the whole running group being banned, for at least one Olympic cycle too
Good call. It just seems doping is rampant, but perhaps it would be even more so if the ban were shorter. Not many athletes will have Shelby's privilege to be able to return after 4 years.
It would help if you stopped telling young folks that drugs will make them faster.
A pretty normal reaction to serious violation of rules or laws is to hand out fairly harsh punishments and if the violation persists to make the punishment more harsh. And that can work. But it also can backfire. Part of the lore of our Old West was that stealing a horse was a hanging offense and there were people hanged for horse theft. But that penalty also made it hard for DAs to get convictions even in cases where the evidence showed a very likely possibility of guilt. It turns out that most jurors weren't cold blooded enough to vote to kill someone for stealing a horse even when there was very convincing evidence so they'd simply vote "not guilty" when the only alternative was going to get someone killed. Most of those hanged for horse theft were people who had commited other crimes but not been convicted.
If you kind of transfer this principle to our sport I think a similar dynamic turns up. The people running the sport want, NEED, the really high profile athletes. No one wanted Usain Bolt banned at all let along for a couple Olympiads or for life, and I'm not suggesting he was taking stuff, just that if he had the slight likelihood of being suspended if he'd been caught would make it less likely that he'd have been convicted. On the other hand a semi harsh ban for a lesser profiled runner like Houlihan "proves" that officials are trying to clean up the sport while not really getting rid of someone who's going to sell tickets or get a fatter TV deal.
I wouldn't have any problem if Kenya or Ethiopia were banned from the sport. And I think most serious running fans feel the same.
Nor would I but that's different thing than toughening or easing penalties for individuals caught doping. I'm not sure that the business of banning athletes is a really effective way to go especially as I believe the powers that be want to make it look like they're trying to keep the sport clean while also making sure the real high profile athletes stay eligible.
I'd fine convicted dopers. If they want to keep competing and winning money they can keep doing so if they pay their fines. If they don't want to pay their fines let them keep competing but don't let them win any money until the amount seized equals the amount fined.