's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

Poll: Should doping be a criminal offence?(11 posts)

Poll: Should doping be a criminal offence?PODIUMBOUNDdotCA
Sep 30, 2002 1:15 PM
I would just like to take a poll as to whether or not the use of performance enhancing substances should be criminal offence resulting in criminal punishment such as fines, a criminal record and possibly jail time.

Below peleton said someone who dopes is essentially a thief which is right. If someone doctored their school transcript or resume to get ahead of someone who is telling the truth thats lieing and fraud. Also since perfomance enhancing drugs are in many ways just like narcotics in that they are banned/restricted substances which ultimately harm the body how should the consequences be any different?

I say, let them dope and post pictures of Lyle Alzado. (nm)onespeed
Sep 30, 2002 1:23 PM
re: Poll: Should doping be a criminal offence?Andy
Sep 30, 2002 2:29 PM
Let them dope but create a new catagory so the dopers compete only against other dopers.
maybe in professional competition?DougSloan
Sep 30, 2002 2:46 PM
If you cheat on taxes, you can go to jail. If you do insider trading, you can go to jail. If you scam an individual out of $500, you can go to jail.

If you cheat in a professional competition, for money, you are stealing from others. No way around that. If you do so intentionally in clear violation of the rules, then why should that be treated any differently than any other fraud or business scam?

However, to prosecute someone for a crime, the government needs probable cause to arrest and indict. We have a right against self-incrimination, so I don't think we could be required to submit to drug tests, if the results of the tests could be used against us. In other words, the test results could not constitute the probably cause.

I haven't fully thought this through, but that's my initial impression.

Nonetheless, I don't think criminal prosecution is necessary. I think banning for life would be sufficient deterrent, if it were enforced and if tests were reliable.

Isn't airport security improbable cause?PODIUMBOUNDdotCA
Sep 30, 2002 3:01 PM
You can call airport security having lack of probable cause. Its an issue of making a sporting problem a problem of society though when you take it into the court room. And I think in some ways it should be but on the other hand I'm not sure either.

Sep 30, 2002 3:12 PM
Airport security typically catches things non-invasively -- dogs sniffing, metal detectors, etc. A blood test is invasive, and I think that can make a difference. I'm not a criminal law attorney, though, so any lay person might well know more than I do about this.

I think I have read cases, now that I think about it, where suspects were forced to give blood samples, but I think this is where there already was probably cause to suspect criminal activity.

The legislatures could pass laws that provide that by entering any athletic competition, which is voluntary, the person agrees to submit to drug testing without further probable cause, and agrees that refusing a test will be an automatic banning for life (sort of like drivers' licenses).

Me, I'd prefer to keep the government out of it. The odds of the goverment screwing it up are too great, and I really don't want to see police raids of locker rooms here like in Europe.

If we simply had accurate, cost effective testing and real penalties, this would never be an issue. If we did, no athlete would risk getting banned.

Tests are always urinePODIUMBOUNDdotCA
Sep 30, 2002 4:19 PM
All the tests tend to be urine tests which is less invasive in some ways at least than a blood test.

In what world?TJeanloz
Oct 1, 2002 5:39 AM
While most anti-doping controls are urine tests, it is still very common to take a blood sample as well.

On the issue of airport security, it can be invasive, because it is a condition of flying. You don't have to go through airport screening if you don't want to fly. The distinction is the difference between carrying a pair of scissors, and carrying a pair of scissors on a plane; doping could well be legal under regular circumstances, but not for professional athletes, who could be (and some are) required to submit to tests as a condition of their employment of choice.
At an amateur level...PODIUMBOUNDdotCA
Oct 1, 2002 12:37 PM
At an amateur level from what I know its very unheard of for anything to be done other than urine tests... at least here in Canada. All drug tests done by the CSES (Canadian Society for Ethics in Sport) that I know of at national/regional competitions are urine.

And why can't drug testing be a more frequent condition of sport as well? There are out of competition tests but increasing the frequency of these especially for national team members could be a good idea. The only downside to this is you can get nailed for a lot of things such as caffeine but I'm not sure if they are only constituted as illegal in large ammounts during competition.

intent ?filtersweep
Sep 30, 2002 4:10 PM
"then why should that be treated any differently than any other fraud or business scam? "

I believe they should police their own, sorta like how you don't normally file ASSUALT charges if you are a pro hockey player.

Government is BIG ENOUGH without stepping in to police professional sports.... what are they gonna do next? Ref professional wrestling?
I hope they ref professional wrestling!PODIUMBOUNDdotCA
Sep 30, 2002 4:19 PM
At least then 1 of 2 things will happen... 1) fights won't be scripted or 2) there will be no more professional wrestling!

But you do raise a good point that a sport should govern itself.