Politics, News & Issues >
Sports News & Opinion (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould drug use get a professional sports athlete banned for life?
Results so far:
| Yes | 54% | 318 votes | Total: 593 votes | |
| No | 46% | 275 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe issue over the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport has long been one wrestled with by the authorities. Whilst they are clear that the use of such substances is wrong, many gray areas have arisen due to complexity of the "banned substances" lists, accuracy over testing procedures and the punishments handed out to sportsmen and women caught using these drugs.
I believe that this confusion creates an environment in which drugs cheats can flourish, as it is by no means certain that they will be caught or adequately censured. Performance enhancing drug use will continue as long as the possibility of lack of detection continues and whilst the penalties handed out act as no deterrent. Whilst the detection of drug use, and the testing techniques, are matters for a scientific discussion, I believe that adequate punishment for convicted offenders can be made quickly and clearly in order for the deterrent to start taking effect.
I believe that the most effective message for deterrence that can be communicated is a lifetime ban from competing.
There are realistic concerns over the fairness of this punishment. Many sports people caught cheating claim ignorance either in the fact that they were unaware that the substance was banned or that they were unaware that they were taking it. In either case "ignorance is no defense" and the competitor must take responsibility for their actions, and that responsibility should begin by accepting that they will be withdrawn from the sport that they have demeaned.
By not taking a stronger stand against the drug cheats the authorities are, inadvertently, encouraging their actions as the equation remains heavily stacked in their favor. If caught they will suffer the embarrassment of conviction and some criticism, but only a comparative "tap on the knuckles" in terms of their ability to compete in their chosen field. On the other side, the rewards of cheating could be huge in terms of improved performance, championship success and financial gain. The only way to even up this imbalance is to ban these cheats for life, thus threatening the ultimate sanction.
Cheats should always be stopped, permanently, from carrying on their activities.
In sporting terms, these cheats have deliberately sought an unfair advantage when compared to their competitors. Without a level playing field the fairness and integrity of any sport is questionable, and they are acting against the ethics of a fair game. This ethic is essential in sport, so they should be withdrawn from that sport permanently.
Sports stars today are tremendous role models for junior competitors in their sport and in the wider community. Being caught out as a drug cheat undermines their status and is a very public fall from grace. In order for this fall to have maximum effect and deter others from following in their cheating footsteps, they should be banned for life and held up as an example that cheating does not pay.
There is a saying that "a leopard can never change its spots", so any competitor convicted of a drugs offense can never be trusted to act honestly again. Their presence in any subsequent event will always attract negative attention, and any success they may have will always be questioned. Their presence, therefore, casts a shadow over any event and the stigma of cheating will always hang around their sport. The only way to "cleanse" that sport is to ban them for life.
A lifetime ban for a drugs conviction should be instigated as an immediate punishment, so that the deterrent is effective. We have to remember that, somewhere, these sports men and women have a passion for their sport and want to compete, and succeed. Their competitiveness may get the better of them, and cheating may become an option, but permanent withdrawal of the ability to compete in the sport that they love may ensure that this option is never taken.
Learn more about this author, Stephen Bate.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
It is not fair to use the comparison of a murderer in relation to the drug use of professional athletes. Instead, I will use the same example which the original poster used - a drug user.
We do not want our young people looking up to people who use drugs, but we also do not want to give those who are in esteemed positions of proposed authority to be forgiven of their sins. However, we are more than willing to allow those who use illicit street drugs a second and third, sometimes even a fourth chance at remedying themselves from what, these days, is being regarded as a disease instead of what it started out as- a very poor personal choice on the person who is now using.
Steroids are not safe. We all know this. Use of these sorts of drugs, when not prescribed for an actual ailment, cause more damage than good. We do not like when our heroes are found out to simultaneously be human as well as talented. It is far easier to see this sort of behavior when it is displayed by a rock star or a spoiled rich kid, but when it is our heroes, we want to punish them severely, and more so than we would if the person in question were some street urchin with no hope for a future. We want them to pay for making us look foolish and we want them to tell us why it is that they could possibly want more than they already have. We come from our own egos at that point, and when we hurt, we want the rest of the world, and especially the person who personally hurt us to hurt just as badly as we do. We will gladly help the street urchin, because that makes us a hero. We have helped a person lift themselves out of a personal and spiritual poverty and in the process have been given the chance to tell the world that because of something that we did, whether it is directly or indirectly, that person is now, in the eyes of better society, whole again, and it was all due to something we did for them. Reality is, we did this for no one else but ourselves.
The ego is a funny thing. It causes all those who actually have an ego to do things that we otherwise would not, especially when it seems that we can do better if we do that which we know we should not do. In this case, it would be pro athletes using steroids to make them do better than they would had they not chosen to use the drugs. Now, understand that I am in agreement that pros should never reduce themselves by help of the ego to drug using maniacs. Quite the opposite. These guys have been given a chance at a life that many of us can only ever dream of.There are probably a few people right now reading this who are telling themselves that they wish they had so and so's money, talent, life. I do it, have done it. You do it, have done it. We all do it, all the time. This just tells me that when people feel that pro athletes should be banned for life from a job they love,the problem is not that the athlete got found out, but rather the person who would think they should stay out of the pro ranks forever is sitting there in their own brains saying "Ha ha! That's what you get!" and it is not due to anything more than the thinking that the pro should have not had a moment, a few moments of human frailty. We want them to pay for our foolishness in thinking that they would never do anything as stupid as shooting steroids. Then they let us down, and that is what they are going to pay for. The societal red mark is far more damaging than is the permanent red mark on their record. We want them to bleed for making us look foolish for trusting them. Rarely are we willing to remember that these people are strangers to us.
They have compromised the sport and have done a bad, bad thing, but the fact remains that we are more willing to uplift an entire population of people who cannot even remember their name rather than allow those who could be the example of having done the bad thing, and now, after a lot of work, a lot of soul searching, a lot of eating crow and LOTS of apologizing, be the example that they were cut out to be.
I say let them have a second and third chance at it all. And why not? We let crack heads, meth heads, alcoholics and wife beaters do it. Why not someone who has access to the media who can truly be the role model that they did not ask to be when they signed those multi-million dollar contracts?
Learn more about this author, Roxanne Cottell.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Sports News & Opinion (Other)
- Who is a better tennis player: Martina Hingis or Anna Kournikova?
- Are rodeos sport or animal cruelty?
- Should sports league expansion continue?
- Which is the slowest sport to watch: Baseball or golf?
- Could professional American sports ever die?
- Can Formula One car racing survive in the face of global warming concerns?
