Achtung! Prison terms for PEDs

[Jacques de Molay]

German athletes face prison if they test positve for drugs after new law comes into force

Under the law, sportsmen and women who test positive for drugs or are found guilty of possession of banned substance can face prison terms of up to three years.

Those who provide them with the substances, including doctors and coaches, can be jailed for up to 10 years.

"In view of the current situation in Russia, the problem doesn't seem to be getting smaller, but seems to be growing," said Maas.

Too harsh?

Too little, too late?

Even with the threat of prison for already existing crimes, people still commit those same crimes. Will such a policy truly act as a deterrent to PED use? History, and human nature, tend to suggest No. Thoughts?

 

[The Hitch]

Something tells me there's a secret clause in the rule which says that if you have won a Football world cup winners medal, you are exempt from the rule

 

[Catwhoorg]

If they truly focus on the pushers, then there may be some effect.


(But I also agree with Hitch's skepticism about uneven application)

 

[Cake]

Re:

Something tells me there's a secret clause in the rule which says that if you have won a Football world cup winners medal, you are exempt from the rule

Don't be silly, there aren't drugs in football cos er, no one ever fails a drug test

 

[arcus]

I've mixed feelings about this.
On one hand, I do believe the threat of legal repercussion will more potently disincentivize dopers and enablers. Meeting Federal Investigators certainly got the US Postal guys to change their tune. On the other hand, the burden of proof in a court of law will likely be far higher than that accepted by WADA/CAS/ADOs. I worry that the crazy excuses will get accepted (and become precedent). I can also envisage the legal validity of ABP values being successfully challenged. This could ultimately hamper anti-doping efforts. It also may challenge the independence of sports jurisdiction.
If a German athlete tests in another country, will they try to have them extradited? Based on what we've seen in relation to the Moscow and Lausanne labs, they might have a hard time proving positives in labs they don't control.

On a related note, I'm ambivalent about whether doping should be criminalized, but it always surprises me that we don't see civil actions taken by clean athletes who have lost revenue to proven dopers.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re:

I've mixed feelings about this.
On one hand, I do believe the threat of legal repercussion will more potently disincentivize dopers and enablers. Meeting Federal Investigators certainly got the US Postal guys to change their tune. On the other hand, the burden of proof in a court of law will likely be far higher than that accepted by WADA/CAS/ADOs. I worry that the crazy excuses will get accepted (and become precedent). I can also envisage the legal validity of ABP values being successfully challenged. This could ultimately hamper anti-doping efforts. It also may challenge the independence of sports jurisdiction.
If a German athlete tests in another country, will they try to have them extradited? Based on what we've seen in relation to the Moscow and Lausanne labs, they might have a hard time proving positives in labs they don't control.

On a related note, I'm ambivalent about whether doping should be criminalized, but it always surprises me that we don't see civil actions taken by clean athletes who have lost revenue to proven dopers.

Why do you think that? There is already a very high burden of proof for an adverse analytical finding. Trafficking and other non-analytical sanctions aren't difficult because of the high burden of proof, but the limited abilities and jurisdictions of ADOs. ADOs can't search a person's house, check banking/finance information, or hold someone in the country (or in jail) who is suspected. There is also seemingly more consistency, as we won't have to deal with back-dated jail time, silent UCI bans, and for other sports, discrepancies between NADOs, National Federations, and the international Federations.

 

[MarkvW]

Spending public money to police sporting events is a waste. The cost of ensuring fair sport should be borne by the sport and its fans--not by the bulk of the population, who couldn't care less.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Re:

Something tells me there's a secret clause in the rule which says that if you have won a Football world cup winners medal, you are exempt from the rule

good post.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Can someone explain why people seem to think this is actual news? I mean in France they have prison terms for doping, in Italy they have prison terms for doping, in I don't know many other countries they have prison terms for doping, have prison terms eradicated doping in those countries?

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re:

Meeting Federal Investigators certainly got the US Postal guys to change their tune.

It was eye-opening for them, no doubt. The bigger question, though, would have to be, Would the threat of such meetings have been enough to stop them from doping in the first place?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

Spending public money to police sporting events is a waste. The cost of ensuring fair sport should be borne by the sport and its fans--not by the bulk of the population, who couldn't care less.

Yet elite sports are significant beneficiaries of public money and receive large subsidies and direct funding and grants.

The nature of that subsidy takes many forms, from directly funding athletes and institutes to contributions to building or upgrading of sporting stadia, bidding and hosting fees for events and so on. Cycling is in a large part funded via public money, indeed most races around the world would not exist in current form or be viable if it were not for public money.

So I think there is a decent case for better accountability for use of public monies in elite sport. Especially when funding alternatives such as health, education, fundamental welfare, basic infrastructure and so on struggle for support.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re:

Can someone explain why people seem to think this is actual news?

Who said it was? It's new(s) in Germany, hence the link. A topic worthy of discussion though, no?

 

[arcus]

Re:

Can someone explain why people seem to think this is actual news? I mean in France they have prison terms for doping, in Italy they have prison terms for doping, in I don't know many other countries they have prison terms for doping, have prison terms eradicated doping in those countries?

Also Austria and Sweden. Successful convictions seem to be very rare though. The media focus on Germany might be secondary to the timing in relation to the recent IAAF/Russian scandals. Maybe people also feel the Germans might be more active in seeking prosecutions.

Lots of countries have enacted laws (of some sort) that deal with the trafficking of WADC Prohibited Substances and Methods (Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Spain and Sweden, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua and Tunisia).

 

[arcus]

Re: Re:

Meeting Federal Investigators certainly got the US Postal guys to change their tune.

It was eye-opening for them, no doubt. The bigger question, though, would have to be, Would the threat of such meetings have been enough to stop them from doping in the first place?

Good question. Who knows? I feel that there is a tipping-point in every athlete's decision to dope, the moment where they consider the reward vs risk ratio favorable. I think young ambitious athletes do worry about getting banned and not being able to earn, though I suspect they worry less about potential health risks. Throw 'going to jail' into the mix, and you might just shift that tipping point.

 

[BullsFan22]

Yeah, but is there a big enough prison for an entire country? Or just move everyone to the east, Siberia.

 

[arcus]

Re: Re:

I've mixed feelings about this.
On one hand, I do believe the threat of legal repercussion will more potently disincentivize dopers and enablers. Meeting Federal Investigators certainly got the US Postal guys to change their tune. On the other hand, the burden of proof in a court of law will likely be far higher than that accepted by WADA/CAS/ADOs. I worry that the crazy excuses will get accepted (and become precedent). I can also envisage the legal validity of ABP values being successfully challenged. This could ultimately hamper anti-doping efforts. It also may challenge the independence of sports jurisdiction.
If a German athlete tests in another country, will they try to have them extradited? Based on what we've seen in relation to the Moscow and Lausanne labs, they might have a hard time proving positives in labs they don't control.

On a related note, I'm ambivalent about whether doping should be criminalized, but it always surprises me that we don't see civil actions taken by clean athletes who have lost revenue to proven dopers.

Why do you think that? There is already a very high burden of proof for an adverse analytical finding. Trafficking and other non-analytical sanctions aren't difficult because of the high burden of proof, but the limited abilities and jurisdictions of ADOs. ADOs can't search a person's house, check banking/finance information, or hold someone in the country (or in jail) who is suspected. There is also seemingly more consistency, as we won't have to deal with back-dated jail time, silent UCI bans, and for other sports, discrepancies between NADOs, National Federations, and the international Federations.

I agree about trafficking and other non-analytical rule violations. A strict judicial stance should foster more anti-doping rigor from the police and from customs. BALCO, Biogenesis, and US Postal scandals didn't come to light due to failed doping tests.

I was thinking more about an athlete with an AAF defending him- or herself. In this context, I feel that a court of law is a different environment from a sports tribunal, where the adjudicators are (supposedly) knowledgeable in the field. I can envisage a situation where an athlete offers a weak excuse, and a skillful defense team convinces a jury that it raises sufficient reasonable-doubt, and then a precedent is set. Also, "sport" might agree to be bound by the ABP, but could the German judicial system put someone in jail based on adverse values? And if an ABP case fails in court, what then?

(For the record, I realize that CAS have been criticized for the composition of it's adjudicating panels, since they draw from ADOs, and may lack independence).

 

[blackcat]

Hitch is on the money