David Cameron suggests doping be criminalized

[Merckx index]

Apologies if this has been posted already in some thread, but I did a brief search and didn't find anything. Cameron made the remarks in Parliament, and suggested the criminalization issue would come up in an anti-corruption conference next month.

There is also the question about whether doping should be made a specific criminal offense which I think is something we should be looking at and debating in this house.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idCAKCN0XA1II

 

[Maxiton]

It is worth debating, as he said, but I think it would be a mistake to criminalize PEDs. I would not like to see that happen.

Maybe make the oversight bodies government agencies reporting to someone with real power, fund them as required, give them subpoena and investigative powers - do all that, and make sure they do their jobs. But the penalties for doping should be sporting ones, not criminal ones.

 

[BullsFan22]

Apologies if this has been posted already in some thread, but I did a brief search and didn't find anything. Cameron made the remarks in Parliament, and suggested the criminalization issue would come up in an anti-corruption conference next month.

There is also the question about whether doping should be made a specific criminal offense which I think is something we should be looking at and debating in this house.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idCAKCN0XA1II

That's very rich, coming from a criminal like Cameron. He should start at home first.

 

[arcus]

Apologies if this has been posted already in some thread, but I did a brief search and didn't find anything. Cameron made the remarks in Parliament, and suggested the criminalization issue would come up in an anti-corruption conference next month.

There is also the question about whether doping should be made a specific criminal offense which I think is something we should be looking at and debating in this house.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idCAKCN0XA1II

Shifting the burden of proof in a doping case from an agreed-upon international code to the vagueries of local judiciaries would be crazy, IMO.

 

[blackcat]

Apologies if this has been posted already in some thread, but I did a brief search and didn't find anything. Cameron made the remarks in Parliament, and suggested the criminalization issue would come up in an anti-corruption conference next month.

There is also the question about whether doping should be made a specific criminal offense which I think is something we should be looking at and debating in this house.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idCAKCN0XA1II

like criminalise jimmy saville and other knights of the empire... how many cyclists who have won gold and dames like paula would he gotta [sic/grammar] criminalise

lots of criminals on his Queen's birthday honours...

 

[wrinklyvet]

Apologies if this has been posted already in some thread, but I did a brief search and didn't find anything. Cameron made the remarks in Parliament, and suggested the criminalization issue would come up in an anti-corruption conference next month.

There is also the question about whether doping should be made a specific criminal offense which I think is something we should be looking at and debating in this house.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idCAKCN0XA1II

That's very rich, coming from a criminal like Cameron. He should start at home first.

Just as a matter of interest, can you say what particular criminality on his part you have in mind? I don't want to divert the thread, but a willingness to brand anyone in this way (whatever his politics) does not advance the argument. I'm not even sure that Blair (who is often so called) should have to put up with it.

 

[King Boonen]

Literally one on topic post then a load of derailing!

I'm against criminalising doping, seems reactionary and completely over the top. The supply is already criminalised and that should be where the focus is, not on the foolish kids taking the stuff.

 

[lenric]

Criminalizing doping could reduce its consume, but it wouldn't completely obliterate it. As a matter of fact, it would also reduce the improvements that have been seen on its detection.
David Cameron should stick to political business and to explain his name in the panama papers.

 

[hrotha]

That's very rich, coming from a criminal like Cameron. He should start at home first.

Look, shagging a pig's head is not a cri-

Oh you mean the other stuff. Never mind then.

 

[The Carrot]

Criminalizing doping wouldn't work as a deterrent, see how well that's worked with recreational drugs. Assuming this ever went through, law enforcement likes going for an easy target and justice is generally for the rich so expect only low ranking amateurs to be caught/convicted, that's if plod can even afford to prioritize this. Pretty sure a criteria for charging people is whether it is in the 'national interest' .

 

[thehog]

Re:

Criminalizing doping could reduce its consume, but it wouldn't completely obliterate it. As a matter of fact, it would also reduce the improvements that have been seen on its detection.
David Cameron should stick to political business and to explain his name in the panama papers.

Perhaps a tax on doping? It would end up being a windfall in Britain!

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re:

It is worth debating, as he said, but I think it would be a mistake to criminalize PEDs. I would not like to see that happen.

Maybe make the oversight bodies government agencies reporting to someone with real power, fund them as required, give them subpoena and investigative powers - do all that, and make sure they do their jobs. But the penalties for doping should be sporting ones, not criminal ones.

If there's prize money involved, there's a case for assimilating doping to criminal fraud.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

It is worth debating, as he said, but I think it would be a mistake to criminalize PEDs. I would not like to see that happen.

Maybe make the oversight bodies government agencies reporting to someone with real power, fund them as required, give them subpoena and investigative powers - do all that, and make sure they do their jobs. But the penalties for doping should be sporting ones, not criminal ones.

If there's prize money involved, there's a case for assimilating doping to criminal fraud.

That would be a stretch, legally. I'm in favor of decriminalizing all drugs, and possibly legalizing them, so I'm definitely opposed to criminalizing PEDs. Besides which, as has been pointed out, if PEDs are criminalized only the poorest of low, poor suckers will end up in the pokey. Criminalizing PEDs would end up ensuring that rich athletes and national sporting heroes are *never* popped. They're hardly popped now, at least not on purpose, but this would just make it worse.

If you want to put people in jail and ruin lives, start with the administrators, sponsors, and team owners who encourage, facilitate, and turn a blind eye to doping. Then we can talk about the athletes.

 

[Taxus4a]

I agree. If it is proven that there is no another posibility that you tried to cheat, it must be criminalized. And later it depends who kind of sustance or method or the quantity or the result to consider more or less punishment. I consider people as Santambroglio, Ricco, Danielson.. should be in prison some years but more than in prison, to pay big money.

But that should be the ideal situation, in fact, rich people could get beter lawyers and skip the prison. so it is no easy.

 

[doperhopper]

Re: Re:

Criminalizing doping could reduce its consume, but it wouldn't completely obliterate it. As a matter of fact, it would also reduce the improvements that have been seen on its detection.
David Cameron should stick to political business and to explain his name in the panama papers.

Perhaps a tax on doping? It would end up being a windfall in Britain!

Absolutely! Tax all the crime, drug dealers, murderers, smugglers... in some countries these are already included in the national GDP. Add some EPO, HGH, testo and roids and we'll easily beat the next crisis.

 

[William H]

Re: Re:

It is worth debating, as he said, but I think it would be a mistake to criminalize PEDs. I would not like to see that happen.

Maybe make the oversight bodies government agencies reporting to someone with real power, fund them as required, give them subpoena and investigative powers - do all that, and make sure they do their jobs. But the penalties for doping should be sporting ones, not criminal ones.

If there's prize money involved, there's a case for assimilating doping to criminal fraud.

That would be a stretch, legally. I'm in favor of decriminalizing all drugs, and possibly legalizing them, so I'm definitely opposed to criminalizing PEDs. Besides which, as has been pointed out, if PEDs are criminalized only the poorest of low, poor suckers will end up in the pokey. Criminalizing PEDs would end up ensuring that rich athletes and national sporting heroes are *never* popped. They're hardly popped now, at least not on purpose, but this would just make it worse.

If you want to put people in jail and ruin lives, start with the administrators, sponsors, and team owners who encourage, facilitate, and turn a blind eye to doping. Then we can talk about the athletes.

How many athletes actually have ended up in prison for doping, in countries where it is criminalised?

Usually it just seems to be used as leverage to get the athletes to point the finger at suppliers, which seems like a good thing.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re: Re:

That would be a stretch, legally.

Why?

I see it very much the same as a contestant on Jeopardy! who cheats to take home big money. The other contestants (and the show itself) would have grounds to sue for damages.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Conflating recreational drug use with PED use in a professional sporting contest shows a lack of degree of logic that is baffling in the extreme.

Even more baffling is trying to model the deterrent effect of criminalisation on one with the possible outcomes on the other.

 

[lenric]

Re: Re:

Criminalizing doping could reduce its consume, but it wouldn't completely obliterate it. As a matter of fact, it would also reduce the improvements that have been seen on its detection.
David Cameron should stick to political business and to explain his name in the panama papers.

Perhaps a tax on doping? It would end up being a windfall in Britain!

I live in Portugal. Here the only things that are not taxed are farts, piss and oxygen. Good idea to Portugal's government!

 

[Cannibal72]

Hate to agree with UKAD, but anything like this that reinforces omertà and discourages whistleblowing even more can only possibly be a bad thing, imo.

 

[Sorped]

Remember the Tour of '98? What made most riders flush their stash? Yes, police involvement and the outlook of going to prison if caught.

 

[Pazuzu]

Re:

Remember the Tour of '98? What made most riders flush their stash? Yes, police involvement and the outlook of going to prison if caught.

Exactly. If we're to be serious about combating doping in sport, it needs to be criminalized. There need to be serious penalties for doping and facilitating doping. Police and prosecutors need powerful tools in the form of sting operations, wire taps, the power to subpoena witnesses, etc. Only this approach will address doping in a serious fashion. I know a lot of folks might balk at this. But sports are big business. The payoffs for coming out on top is huge. Bigger in many cases than what people get sent to jail for other forms of fraud.

If we don't go this route we might as well allow doping.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Would a criminal court require an increased level of proof compared to an anti-doping authority ?

Obviously the athlete is responsible for what is present in their system and so a +ve test = a sanction. That eliminates all sorts of excuses

But if you're attempting to prove fraud beyond reasonable doubt would a +ve test suffice ? How about 3 missed tests ?

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re:

Would a criminal court require an increased level of proof compared to an anti-doping authority ?

Obviously the athlete is responsible for what is present in their system and so a +ve test = a sanction. That eliminates all sorts of excuses

But if you're attempting to prove fraud beyond reasonable doubt would a +ve test suffice ? How about 3 missed tests ?

Intuition says the current level of evidence is sufficient for a criminal court —otherwise, every single athlete who tests positive could appeal in a criminal court and win damages for lost wages, lost prize money, lost employment, etc. And this is clearly not the case.