Most of you make good points, and what Cathal did was not good (take EPO), but he paid his penalty and should have been given the opportunity to redeem himself.
When Bernard Lagat pulled out of Paris (2003) because one of his samples came back 'positive' that did not stop him from coming back, and the weight of evidence was against him in that case. Lagat only got 'off' because the procedures at the Lab. in Malabray (France) had not been followed to the letter. When there is a 'positive' reading in a sample, like in the Lagat case, it is most unlikely that the athlete did not take something. However he (Lagat) was given the benefit of the doubt. Was this politics?
Lombard, was caught, admitted it, and then tried to come back, but was not allowed to run in normal circumstances. The sport had ceased to be fun for him. It is difficult to live and celebrate life and running when you are made to feel like a pariah.
I never defended Cathal for taking drugs, but I do defend the right of a human to return to society once he has paid his penalty, as Cathal did. It is a sad reflection on society that he was not allowed to do so.
Western judicial systems have been devised with those provisions in mind - you commit wrong, you pay a penalty, and then you return to society with a chance to redeem yourself.
But Cathal returned to the running community with a permanent shackle attached to himself - a shackle made up of hostility and incomprehension from others. The weight of the shackle eventually made Cathal realize that he would never ever be acclaimed for his new running career performances, even though there is little/nothing to suggest that he was not 'clean.'
Ghost in Korea
, apply now, good conditions. c.moulton