Two Years or Four Years?

Two Years or Four Years?

The Baseball Hall of Fame ballot was mailed out today, and this year’s vote is going to be one of the most interesting in recent memory. That’s because Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are eligible for the first time. The Steroid Era players are going to complicate the vote and probably lead to a very crowded ballot for years to come. But, believe it or not, today’s blog isn’t about the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot. I’ll share my thoughts on that as we get closer to the actual election. I am going to take the performance-enhancing drug topic, though. More specifically, the World Anti-Doping Agency’s pending change in legislation that will double the length of the suspension for an athlete’s first doping offense from two years to four. The whole idea behind this new policy, which will be up for formal approval next year and go into effect in 2015, is to guarantee that any athlete guilty of a serious doping offense would automatically be forced to miss the next Olympics. There’s enough support for this new policy that it’s likely to pass with flying colors, but I’m still not quite sure how I feel about four-year suspensions for first-time offenders. No two doping offenses are the same, and if they’re going to start enforcing four-year bans, they’ll really need to consider penalties on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, a four-year ban is appropriate. But in other circumstances, I think a four-year suspension for a first offense might be too steep. Support for this new WADA code grew during the lead-up to the London Games, where there were a few high-profile cases of athletes having doping bans that would’ve kept them out of the Olympics overturned. The first was American sprinter LaShawn Merritt, who successfully challenged the IOC’s “Osaka Rule.” The Osaka Rule said that any athlete who received a suspension of six months or longer for a doping violation would be automatically ineligible for the next Olympics, no matter when the suspension was served. Merritt argued that the Olympic ban was a second sanction for the same offense, which went directly against WADA code. And the Court of Arbitration for Sport agreed. That paved the way for Dwain Chambers to challenge the British Olympic Association’s automatic lifetime Olympic ban for any doping offenders. He, too, had his ban overturned by the CAS because double jeopardy also applied in that case. I agreed with the CAS about both Merritt and Chambers. Especially since Merritt had his initial two-year ban reduced to 21 months, which allowed him to run at the 2011 World Championships and win a silver medal in the 400 meters. Chambers served his suspension from 2003-05, forcing him to miss the Athens Olympics, and he missed the Beijing Games, too, because of the lifetime Olympic ban. Under that ban, Chambers wasn’t allowed to represent Great Britain in any international competition from 2006 until the London Olympics. Now, the Chambers case is much different because he was knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs, but regardless, he served his penalty. If he was allowed to compete in all other competitions with no restrictions, he shouldn’t have been excluded from attempting to make the Olympic team (which he eventually did). Compare those cases to Justin Gatlin. The 2004 Olympic champion in the 100 meters, Gatlin had a second positive test in 2006. A second positive usually carries an automatic lifetime ban with it, but Gatlin was given a ban of only eight years because of questionable circumstances regarding his first positive. That suspension was eventually reduced to four years, and Gatlin returned to competiton in 2010. Yet, when Gatlin returned, there was no hoopla surrounding him. He was welcomed back as if nothing had happened. In fact, it was seen as a remarkable story of redemption when Gatlin made the Olympic team this summer. And he put an exclamation point on the story by winning the bronze behind Bolt and Blake in London. The reason I bring up Merritt, Chambers and Gatlin is to illustrate my point that every doing case is different. And that’s why I’m not sure an automatic four-year ban is necessarily the answer for everybody. They need to also have shorter bans for violations that aren’t deemed as serious. Or at least the option to issue shorter suspensions. Although, this is a tricky subject. Because I completely see the reasoning behind the new policy, as well. And I don’t necessarily disagree with it, either. Many in the Olympic Movement and the different international sporting federations feel that two years is not enough of a deterrent. Forcing an athlete to miss an Olympics would get the point across in a very emphatic way. And it would further prove that performance-enhancing drugs have no place in the Olympics. Likewise, the potential lost income from not getting the endorsements and other spoils of Olympic success could be immense. That’s the point. That’s where I support the new code. WADA and the international sport federations are confident that the new code will stand up to any potential legal challenges. They’re being smart and careful about it. A four-year ban doesn’t break any national laws, so worldwide enforcement won’t be a problem. Likewise, it would serve the same purpose as the IOC and BOA policies that were thrown out this year (although, it should be noted, Chambers still would’ve been eligible for the London Olympics under the new policy). Ultimately, this new policy is going to pass. There’s too much support for it not to. And, regardless, I’m sure it’s something we’ll all get used to. And, who knows? Maybe it’ll serve its intended purpose. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll ever be able to keep drugs completely out of the Olympics. So keeping the drug cheats out might be the way to clean them up. Even if all doping cases are not created equal. Posted by Joe Brackets at 12:39 AM No comments: