Play Nice Drugs - we're losing

Remove this Banner Ad

Wallaby

Wallaby

Brownlow Medallist
Veteran 10k Posts Podcaster
May 8, 2007
10,623
14,895
vic
AFL Club
Richmond
I think the issue of legalising performance-enhancing drugs in sports is only going to get bigger.

At the last Olympics, we had at least 3 Gold medallists that were previous drug-takers and had 'served' their bans, and come back to win their event (Men's Road Cycling, Womens 1500m, Women's Hammer). There were literally dozens of other athletes competing who had also served bans. It's part of the resume - 'National Champs. World Champs. Drug ban. Olympic Trials.'

Unfortunately, we know seem to have reached the stage where serving a drug ban is a bit like breaking in a race - 'Naughty. We'll give you a penalty. Don't do it again'. It's almost an accepted strategy. Aim to win the Olympics in 5-6 years - train hard - do drugs - if you get caught early on, well, you only get a 2-year rest period - where you can REALLY do the good stuff.

There's media pressure from the 'Oh, he made one mistake' angle - the Britich cyclist David Millar is 'respected' in the British media because he admitted his guilt and said he was sorry. Well, yes - after he was caught! Drugs make a great story - both the 'Got Him!' angle, and the 'redemption' angle.

I am a life ban supporter. If you take drugs, you have made a conscious decision to cheat. You have prepared. It's not like elbowing a competitor in the race - that's a 'heat of the moment' infraction, for which you get penalised. Same goes for illegal equipment - bikes, ping-pong bats (look it up), fencing blades, the lot. You prepare to cheat - life ban.

But since life bans were thrown out by the courts, I fear the penalties are just going to get watered down more and more - until we say 'Stuff it. If you want to stick it in your body, go ahead'. Then it truly does becoame a battle of the Frankensteins.
 
Waiting for the day they get into genetic engineering and just plonk down some guy who's been engineered to fill the entire mouth of a soccer goal.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

At the very least, if you get caught taking drugs during an Olympic period you should be banned for life from the Olympics. Let them compete in other meets but deny them the chance at ultimate success in their sport.
 
The IOC should state they will issue 12 year bans to their Olympics for anyone transgressing with serious type of drugs or drug activity ie taking EPO or Steroids fro 6 year before you were caught and got a 2 year ban. Call that a tier 1 drug offence. A tier 2 or 3 drug offence would be the poor 15 year old Romanian gymnist who won the All Around gold in 2000, and had won other medals before hand and been drug tested and cleared, but received a Nurofen tablet from her team doctor before the All Around comp, won it then tested positive to pseudoephedrine and was stripped of the gold but allowed to keep the other medals she won and passed a drug test.

The IOC are based in Switzerland which doesn't have a common law system. They invite each NOC and each NOC invites individual athletes to attend the games. If the ruling came from the IOC that each member NOC wasn't allowed to invite an athlete that has failed a a tier 1 drug test for 12 years, then you would get around the bullshit that you get in common law countries and court rulings that a 12 year ban from the sport is denying them an opportunity to earn a living in their profession. Gatlin for example who won bronze in the 100m and silver in the 4x100m could run the IAAF diamond leagues after a 2 year ban and make $$$, but he isn't allowed to run at the Olympics because the IOC hasn't invited him.

The IOC is a law onto itself on so many issues, so if it really wanted to, it could clean up the issue of drug cheats competing at the Olympics, as it has the power in its hands.
 
My only problem is, when has it ever been clean? Drug use may not have been as full on as from the 70s onwards (from what I know). I've read articles, books on cyling/TdF, which has mentioned drug use from as far back as 100 years ago! I thinks fans may have to settle for a happy medium (if one can be reached). What confuses me about drug taking and tests, is that I've heard and read a number of Ben Johnson interviews and he has stated (more than once) that he had taken drugs, but not what he got done for!(stanzolol)
 
The problem is that it is the putz athletes that are going to be caught from less 'able' nations. The big Olympic sports federations from wealthier countries may actively cover up or help to cover up for a really high-profile athlete.

I'm not sure the IOC cares that much about hunting down athletes. They want to trumpet clean games and hold on to public credibility. It doesn't help the Olympic myth if too many athletes are uncovered.
 
Yes we are losing, but all legalising performance enhancing drugs will do is lead to the death of athletes who overuse them ! Unfortunately the few that get caught could well be described as "the tip of the iceberg'. Remember that few athletes from the "big" nations have ever been caught by a test AT the Olympic Games. That U S drug cheat Marion Jones was only caught because of an investigation into a California lab that had nothing to do with the Olympics.
 
The fact is, drugs are becoming less of a stigma in today's sports. Part of that is due to the PC over-reaction to ban players who test positive for recreational drugs - this means a drug test is not universally bad - 'He's just a naughty boy - all young people do it'.

But now we are seeing former drug cheats being held up as admirable athletes - at the last olympics, the Poms made a big thing of Millar (caught, confessed, how noble) and Ohurogou (miss one drug test - careless - miss 3????). Also, because some commentators are obviously against drugs and will not respect former cheats, there is the opposite view 'They've done their time - everyone is entitled to one mistake'.

I think there will be a big expolsion in the drug world soon - similar to what canada went through after Ben johnson, where it was revealed a huge number of their athletes were also on the gear. But there is no pressure from organisers themselves - it's not in their commercial interests to expose a drug-taking culture. The US had the case of over 100 baseballers on a list who had tested positive - only a few were ever sanctioned. Spain had Operation Puerto - over 200 top names (apparently). But after hitting the cyclists, nothing further happened - the rumors being that Spain didn't want huge numbers of it's top flight footballers caught and punished.

So with the media not completely focussed on the anti-drug line, and the owners of the sports not wishing to upset their particulat Pot of Gold - the anti-drug stance is only going to soften.

And I hate it, I hate it, i hate it. it means we have a situation where I have seen every single gold-medal athlete from London named as 'Possible drug user' - including Bolt, Rudisha, Pearson - everyone. Ok, that's mostly ill-informed internet drivel, but just that it is out there means the integrity of the sport is always questioned.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Call me naive but I guess as a mere punter (along with most of the general public) I was not aware it has been (and maybe still is) so easy to systematically dope and pass hundreds of drug tests.

If it happened in cycling then I find it hard to believe it didn't also happen in other sports. It would make sense that it was/is rife in swimming in athletics. I think back to someone like Inge de Bruijn and find it hard to believe now that she could find so much improvement at age 27 naturally.

blackcat, Wallaby, RussellEbertHandball may be able to give a knowledgable reply.
 
SJ said:
Call me naive but I guess as a mere punter (along with most of the general public) I was not aware it has been (and maybe still is) so easy to systematically dope and pass hundreds of drug tests.

If it happened in cycling then I find it hard to believe it didn't also happen in other sports. It would make sense that it was/is rife in swimming in athletics. I think back to someone like Inge de Bruijn and find it hard to believe now that she could find so much improvement at age 27 naturally.

blackcat, Wallaby, RussellEbertHandball may be able to give a knowledgable reply.
Click to expand...
inke is even less egregious than mcihelle smith and Dara Torres, all of them on stuff, only one caught. (In terms of older athletes). But why did Skippy Huegill and Michael Klim and Ian Thorpe think they could come back near 30? Rhetoric question ;) And which one, (not Thorpe) tested positive in 98 and Swimming Australia covered it up?

Swimming is dirty from top to bottom at elite
 
blackcat said:
inke is even less egregious than mcihelle smith and Dara Torres, all of them on stuff, only one caught. (In terms of older athletes). But why did Skippy Huegill and Michael Klim and Ian Thorpe think they could come back near 30? Rhetoric question ;) And which one, (not Thorpe) tested positive in 98 and Swimming Australia covered it up?

Swimming is dirty from top to bottom at elite
Click to expand...
I have read your posts in the past and see what you are getting at there.

On Thorpe, I like to think he was clean though. As he was a freak at 14 and I find it hard to believe he was doping at 14. Or maybe he then hopped on it anyway, and then was even further in front of the field.
 
SJ said:
I have read your posts in the past and see what you are getting at there.

On Thorpe, I like to think he was clean though. As he was a freak at 14 and I find it hard to believe he was doping at 14. Or maybe he then hopped on it anyway, and then was even further in front of the field.
Click to expand...

Thorpe definitely could not have been doping at 14, unless Doug Frost was his properatore, and facilitator, and that defies belief. as Frost in my eyes was an old school, teach your kids to swim coach. Avuncular. Not sports science outta eastern europe
 
blackcat said:
Thorpe definitely could not have been doping at 14, unless Doug Frost was his properatore, and facilitator, and that defies belief. as Frost in my eyes was an old school, teach your kids to swim coach. Avuncular. Not sports science outta eastern europe
Click to expand...
What about 17?
 
I dont believe in life bans

I dont believe in criminalising athletes

Because the sport and the system has enabled, facilitated, motivated and encouraged athletes.

and these are type A personalities, in highly defined and unique sub-cultures. To think we know (including "I, blackcat"), to assume we know their norms and motivations is a category error. We cant unless we have lived that niche.
 
SJ said:
What about 17?
Click to expand...

think Team Great Britain 2012. How did they do in the gold medal tally? Bread and water.

Ok, transpose this to the scenario your question was asking. Yes, I am evading. I have called out too many athletes as it is. And the athletes are not the problems nor the criminals, nor immoral for using PEDs. I dont see them in the wrong. I did however at one time.
 
SJ said:
Call me naive but I guess as a mere punter (along with most of the general public) I was not aware it has been (and maybe still is) so easy to systematically dope and pass hundreds of drug tests.

If it happened in cycling then I find it hard to believe it didn't also happen in other sports. It would make sense that it was/is rife in swimming in athletics. I think back to someone like Inge de Bruijn and find it hard to believe now that she could find so much improvement at age 27 naturally.

blackcat, Wallaby, RussellEbertHandball may be able to give a knowledgable reply.
Click to expand...

SJ I have written a fair bit about this recently. On the port board we have a thread going on about illicit and PED's and theoretically what would you do if you were president of the club and knew both were happening. On page 3 I gave the first of my many posts - a few long post and how being in Canada when Ben Johnson won the 100m and then then watching the first week of the Dubin Inquiry into drugs in Canadian sport has shaped my thinking and knowledge on PEDs. Rather than cut and paste large slabs of that and subsequent posts I direct you to my posts from page 3 of 7.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/theoretical-issue-drugs-and-sport-and-pafc.972243/page-3

I guess I am aware of it but want to believe that there is some sort of level playing field. Did Ben Johnson dope yep? Is it still - not sure if thrilling is the right word - to watch him run that 100m again and again yep.

My preference is that sport was pure but its not. I will cut and paste one thing I posted on page 6 of the thread because it probably sums up the moral position of why sports should be different but it might never be.

----

Stuck this in the cycling forum thread as a poster argued why do we take a different attitude to rock stars etc who take drugs and you can argue those illicit drugs are performancing enhancing.....

Dr Robin Parisotto the bloke who invented the urine and blood ON and OFF test for EPO agrees with the hypocracy angle as do I, but this is his agrgument as to why sport should rise above it, in his book is

Pages 234 and 235 (final two in the Epilogue) of Blood Sports - The inside dope on drugs in sport

But on the other hand it's just a game. Should sporting performances and human ability be limited to what nature has given us if sport is simply another form of entertainment? Why would society need to persist with the notion of purity of sport? Why do we scold an athlete who may have taken an upper legitimately yet often expect screen and stage performers to take them so that they can keep entertaining us? Ultimately what is the difference between the two?

Tomorrow's society may demand to see drug-laden and genetically morphed athletes performing super human feats? Could we then be leading back to gladiatorial times when games were fought to the death, only this time without weapons, but with drugs? There has to be a seachange, because ultimately it is the athletes who will hurt the most. Perhaps the answer lies with them alone, for it is they who have the most to lose.

In the end though, sport isn't just about entertainment it's about strengthening character, focusing efforts and improving physical condition. And it's the athletes themselves that have to show that character, it's sports people, not the testers and the politicians that will determine whether this battle is won. They can choose to dope or not.

The future is uncertain with genetic doping now a reality, its potential to permanently change world sport. Present day drugs are already doing irreparable damage to the credibility of sport and to the health of elite athletes. Genetic doping may be the final straw.

But today at least, for the cheating athletes who have had more blood than human nature has given them, as long as the will to catch them continues they will slowly and surely be caught.
 
I'm all for the life-ban, you test positive to drugs, then GTFO! We have to wipe this from Sports.

NO DRUGS!!
 
the reason it is rife is because the sanctions are not harsh enough...the benefits of taking them and winning far outweigh the cons...it can be the difference between being a multi millionaire and not

until they make the laws harsh (life bans and a MASSIVE monetary fine that will cripple a cheat financially) it will continue to go on

The problem needs to be rectified now to finally put a stop to it

come on powers that be make the consequences so harsh it just isnt worth an athletes life to cheat

DRUGS NEED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF SPORTS ONCE AND FOR ALL AND IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN NOW

i can not handle drugs in sport.
 
you just gotta know your cycle, its easy to drug cheat the olympics, nearly all do, just you cant rock up and piss hot, but most atheltes with use TRT or some kind of hormone changer and cycle it off for events
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top