Should drug "cheats" be allowed back in to any sport?

There is a thread on the go just now about how well Matt Stevens has played in the Churchill Cup. Leaving how well he seems to have played aside (I haven't seen much of the CC so can't comment but good luck to him if he has improved), I want to look at the wider picture - should anyone who has been found guilty of breaching any sport's regulation by taking banned substances be allowed back (unless there is an innocent explanation like Scott Macleod's asthma problems).
Should we differentiate between performance enhancing and (dare I use the expression) "recreational" drugs?
I think anyone done for performance enhancements should be banned from any sport sin die. The element of trust has gone and, basically, someone has tried to cheat their way to success.
On the other hand, and I have never taken "recreational" drugs so i have no feelings of empathy, I do feel we should allow some leeway to someone banned for this. We don't castigate a sportsman/woman for getting 3 points and a £60 fine for speeding so are we too hard here? Matt Stevens served 2 years off his chosen sport for this and it's not as if he was driving heavy machinery and endangering lives

I know nothing about drugs so I'm not qualified to have a opinion
Does taking recreational drugs alter the way a person thinks ?if they do could that not then be classed as a performance enhancing drug.
Maybe taking recreational drugs would steady the nerves or make a player feel invincible.

Cymroglan wrote:I know nothing about drugs so I'm not qualified to have a opinion
Does taking recreational drugs alter the way a person thinks ?if they do could that not then be classed as a performance enhancing drug.
Maybe taking recreational drugs would steady the nerves or make a player feel invincible.

I believe they account for that - some of the banned drugs out there are ones that steady nerves or that sort of thing. The "recreational" drugs are the ones that offer no useful benefit for the athlete's performance.
The only problem with them that I'm aware of is that they might have a masking effect - they might disguise that the athlete also took something performance enhancing.

~It depends on what drug to be honest.

Stevens took a party drug which was stupid but it wasnt used to cheat or enhance his playing performance, he served his time and can play again.

But someone who deliberatly takes steroids or other perfomance enhancing drugs to gain an advantage then no they should be banned forever.

I agree with IYA. Performance enhances should be without question a life long ban - the element of trust has gone and they were taken purely to gain an unfair advantage in one's chosen field. Plain and Simply it's cheating in it's worst form. However, recreational drugs are just that. You don't want to encourage them but at the same time it's hardly cheating and if anything they will advesly affect performances, either in a game or not being able to train to full potential. I think a 2 year ban was enough, maybe even 18 months would have covered it.

Not recreational drugs, no. I appreciate the posters on this thread have no experience of that (not missing too much lads) but most people have at least dabbled! Or most people in my social circles have anyway

Anyway, it's not a big deal and it wouldn't give you an advantage on the field. It's right that players should be discouraged from this because when your job is to be in peak physical condition, drug taking is very, very irresponsible. And it sets a poor example to younger fans. But no more irresponsible or a bad example than binge drinking imo.

Doping, cheating- that is a whole other much more serious kettle of fish.

Cymroglan wrote:I know nothing about drugs so I'm not qualified to have a opinion
Does taking recreational drugs alter the way a person thinks ?if they do could that not then be classed as a performance enhancing drug.
Maybe taking recreational drugs would steady the nerves or make a player feel invincible.

If Matt Stevens had have taken cocaine before running onto the field the only thing that would have happened is that he would have run around like a headless chicken for 30 minutes, given away countless penalties and if be some fluke hadn't been sent off would probably have had a heart attack in the middle of the pitch. He may well have felt pretty invincible whilst he ran onto the pitch though but that would have been the only remotely positive thing he would have gotten out of it.

snoopster wrote:

Cymroglan wrote:I know nothing about drugs so I'm not qualified to have a opinion
Does taking recreational drugs alter the way a person thinks ?if they do could that not then be classed as a performance enhancing drug.
Maybe taking recreational drugs would steady the nerves or make a player feel invincible.

I believe they account for that - some of the banned drugs out there are ones that steady nerves or that sort of thing. The "recreational" drugs are the ones that offer no useful benefit for the athlete's performance.
The only problem with them that I'm aware of is that they might have a masking effect - they might disguise that the athlete also took something performance enhancing.

Had never thought about the potential masking of illegal performance enhances - good point

B91212 wrote:

Cymroglan wrote:I know nothing about drugs so I'm not qualified to have a opinion
Does taking recreational drugs alter the way a person thinks ?if they do could that not then be classed as a performance enhancing drug.
Maybe taking recreational drugs would steady the nerves or make a player feel invincible.

If Matt Stevens had have taken cocaine before running onto the field the only thing that would have happened is that he would have run around like a headless chicken for 30 minutes, given away countless penalties and if be some fluke hadn't been sent off would probably have had a heart attack in the middle of the pitch. He may well have felt pretty invincible whilst he ran onto the pitch though but that would have been the only remotely positive thing he would have gotten out of it.

Any psychological advantage would be outweighed by an over-confidence and that affects decision making. Imagine a coked up prop trying to round the entire backline on his own ball in hand

Seriously, any rugby player who was buck stupid and unprofessional enough to go onto the pitch with recreational drugs in his system would be a major liability to his team, not able to perform to the level paid to do it and would probably end up sacked and unable to get a second chance.

Because coke is bad kids- it's very, very bad

I agree with the differentiation between "performance enhancing" and "recreational" drugs. Definitely have a life ban for the former and a say a dis-encouraging ban for the latter.

However, I would say that sometimes people are stupid and naive. Look at Kolo Toure in football. Now maybe he did know that taking his wife's diet pills would enhance his performance, but maybe he didn't. In that situation certainly give the guy a fair amount of a suspension but banning the guy for life is harsh. In other words, basically, it depends on the circumstances of each case. If there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the lad has taken drugs to improve his performance, ban him for life. Any less than that kind of proof and I think it would be slightly harsh. You need to be absolutely certain that the guy has breached "the element of trust" as the OP said. That's my opinion anyway for what it's worth.

Notch wrote:

B91212 wrote:

Cymroglan wrote:I know nothing about drugs so I'm not qualified to have a opinion
Does taking recreational drugs alter the way a person thinks ?if they do could that not then be classed as a performance enhancing drug.
Maybe taking recreational drugs would steady the nerves or make a player feel invincible.

If Matt Stevens had have taken cocaine before running onto the field the only thing that would have happened is that he would have run around like a headless chicken for 30 minutes, given away countless penalties and if be some fluke hadn't been sent off would probably have had a heart attack in the middle of the pitch. He may well have felt pretty invincible whilst he ran onto the pitch though but that would have been the only remotely positive thing he would have gotten out of it.

Any psychological advantage would be outweighed by an over-confidence and that affects decision making. Imagine a coked up prop trying to round the entire backline on his own ball in hand

Seriously, any rugby player who was buck stupid and unprofessional enough to go onto the pitch with recreational drugs in his system would be a major liability to his team, not able to perform to the level paid to do it and would probably end up sacked and unable to get a second chance.

Because coke is bad kids- it's very, very bad

Do you mean the brown fizzy stuff or white south american stuff (or both!)?

I have quite an extensive knowledge of recreational drugs and I can speak with some authority by stating that unless your sport involves;

A Talking sheet for hours on end,
B Identifying new colours previously disguised in chickens eggs
C Musing about the resemblance of your own genitalia to Billy Connolly

there is little advantage to be gained.

Stevens screwed up, but he didn't cheat. Drugs cheats are a different case, they should be gone sin die.

B91212 wrote:

Notch wrote:

B91212 wrote:

Cymroglan wrote:I know nothing about drugs so I'm not qualified to have a opinion
Does taking recreational drugs alter the way a person thinks ?if they do could that not then be classed as a performance enhancing drug.
Maybe taking recreational drugs would steady the nerves or make a player feel invincible.

If Matt Stevens had have taken cocaine before running onto the field the only thing that would have happened is that he would have run around like a headless chicken for 30 minutes, given away countless penalties and if be some fluke hadn't been sent off would probably have had a heart attack in the middle of the pitch. He may well have felt pretty invincible whilst he ran onto the pitch though but that would have been the only remotely positive thing he would have gotten out of it.

Any psychological advantage would be outweighed by an over-confidence and that affects decision making. Imagine a coked up prop trying to round the entire backline on his own ball in hand

Seriously, any rugby player who was buck stupid and unprofessional enough to go onto the pitch with recreational drugs in his system would be a major liability to his team, not able to perform to the level paid to do it and would probably end up sacked and unable to get a second chance.

Because coke is bad kids- it's very, very bad

Do you mean the brown fizzy stuff or white south american stuff (or both!)?

Hey, they're both bad but one can be offset by a good dentist and thorough brushing- though it's not good for kids to drink too much. Marching powder on the other hand- well it turns cool people into narcissists at times. Not a fan!

Would somebody tell me how we got sidetracked onto dental health please?

Once they've done their time why not let them back.

Sweating, flushes, biting tongue, talking about the good old days in Vietnam, wide eyes, inability to form coherant sentences.

Probably causes: -

1) Being on the end of a Dale Mcintosh tackle
2) You've popped an E

Submit candidate for testing...

Everyone deserves another chance.

Could depend on external factors too. Give a backrower an ounce of weed and he'll sit down, useless and content. Would be the complete opposite of a performance enhancing drug.

On the other hand, if you give him the ball and someone puts a Mars bar under the posts, well it'd be harder to stop him than Lomu!

disneychilly wrote:Could depend on external factors too. Give a backrower an ounce of weed and he'll sit down, useless and content. Would be the complete opposite of a performance enhancing drug.

On the other hand, if you give him the ball and someone puts a Mars bar under the posts, well it'd be harder to stop him than Lomu!

Spies on a sugar rush = tankety tank.

well to be honest any player who takes drugs either rec or Performance Enhancing desverves a long ban and if they have that attitude towards the sport then i think they dont deserve to play again

People make mistakes, sometimes completely innocently (taking the wrong medication or whatever) and sometimes people just make a bad decision. Sure they should be punished, but I think it would be very harsh to give someone a life ban, and I would reserve that for a second offence.

if they take PE drugs then i think they should be, sends out the wrong messages more understandable if it is wrong medication or even if a rec drug as it gives no benefits (but should still be punished)

Oh, I would definitely be looking at around 5 years for taking performance enhancing drugs, and then carefully monitor them if they do return to the sport. But I'm not a huge fan of life-bans.

Lets put it in perspective.
A murderer goes to jail for 10-20 years
Then is let out.
Unless the drug is somehow still having an effect after the relevant ban which I assume would include some punishment time, is it really fair to ban them further.

Notch wrote:

B91212 wrote:

Notch wrote:

B91212 wrote:

Cymroglan wrote:I know nothing about drugs so I'm not qualified to have a opinion
Does taking recreational drugs alter the way a person thinks ?if they do could that not then be classed as a performance enhancing drug.
Maybe taking recreational drugs would steady the nerves or make a player feel invincible.

If Matt Stevens had have taken cocaine before running onto the field the only thing that would have happened is that he would have run around like a headless chicken for 30 minutes, given away countless penalties and if be some fluke hadn't been sent off would probably have had a heart attack in the middle of the pitch. He may well have felt pretty invincible whilst he ran onto the pitch though but that would have been the only remotely positive thing he would have gotten out of it.

Any psychological advantage would be outweighed by an over-confidence and that affects decision making. Imagine a coked up prop trying to round the entire backline on his own ball in hand

Seriously, any rugby player who was buck stupid and unprofessional enough to go onto the pitch with recreational drugs in his system would be a major liability to his team, not able to perform to the level paid to do it and would probably end up sacked and unable to get a second chance.

Because coke is bad kids- it's very, very bad

Do you mean the brown fizzy stuff or white south american stuff (or both!)?

Hey, they're both bad but one can be offset by a good dentist and thorough brushing- though it's not good for kids to drink too much. Marching powder on the other hand- well it turns cool people into narcissists at times. Not a fan!

Would somebody tell me how we got sidetracked onto dental health please?

Sorry, my mind wanders from time to time

In terms of life bans, I don't think so. People mess up and have to pay the penalty, but society will in most cases give people an opportunity to redeem themselves. A drug cheat will always (in sport and beyond) live with that reputation, which in combination with a lengthy spell outside their chosen passion, is sufficient for me.

If it can be proven that a "cheat" has willfully and intentionally used performance enhancing drugs, they shouldn't be allowed back into sport.

I think in Matt's case it was rereational drug on a night out and not to try and enhance his playing performance, given this the punishment given was appropriate.

If however someone takes a course of steroids (several rugby league players have tested positive inthis country alone), this is a wilful pre-meditated attempt to gain an advantage on the playing field (e.g. increased muscle bulk, increased aggression etc) and thus should merit more severe punishment.

I personally don't believe in ending a players career because of a doping offence but at the same time we don't want a situation like in cycling where the advantages of taking EPO, Clenbuterol, human growth hormone, blood transfusions, testosterone etc seem to outweigh the risks of getting caught for some people.

In short punish people as a deterrent but make it proportional to their offence, the more serious the offence the more serious the punishment.

dubh_linn wrote:I think in Matt's case it was recreational drug on a night out and not to try and enhance his playing performance, given this the punishment given was appropriate.

I'm not sure t was a 'night out'. More a habit that was ultimately bound to ruin his sporting life.

He cleaned himself up and worked his way back by honesty and endeavour.

Darker is the sanction which forbade clubs to help meaningfully and thus forced him out of the game with no contact. Where was the spirit of rugby then?

That's the issue that has to be addressed. From time to time relatively wealthy youngsters with time on their hands are going to fall by the wayside. A support network is required - not abandonment.

Just to get it straight though cocaine is consider a peformance enhancing drug, even if it were legal as a recreational drug it would still be banned in sport.
We have Stevens' word for it that it was being used as a recreationbal drug and no reason to doubt that, but just as with peopel acidentaly taking steroids in inhalers if the regualtions tried to draw a distinction between one type of use and another the loopholes for the real cheats would make catching and punsihing people even harder. The authorities take a stance that if its in your body its your fauult, no excuses. Yes people do take things unkowingly but if they didnt take this line it gives a very easy get out clause for those doing it deliberatly.

Im not in favour of life bans.

Should drug "cheats" be allowed back in to any sport?

Once they've served their time and shown genuine contrition yes.

Everyone deserves a second chance after making a mistake.

If they do it again though.....well that's a different kettle of fish.

Think the distinction between performance enhancing and recreational can be a little blurred. Before the spread of steroids, growth hormones etc. , cyclists and some football players (remember Willie Johnston, 1978 world cup?) took amphetamines or equivalents (eg. diet pills) to give them that extra oomph. Cocaine in moderation would have a similar effect. When it first came to Europe in the late nineteenth century, doctors gave it to to patients indiscriminately as a pick-up / tonic / anti-depressant.

A professional sportman caught taking a 'recreational' drug is being stupid and deserves a fairly lengthy ban as was applied to Stevens. A life ban in such circumstances would be unduly harsh.

The issue with positive tests for 'performance enhancing' drugs is a bit more complex than some on here seem to think. In highly tested sports (cycling, athletics), many (most?) of the positives found are from inadvertant taking of medication or supplements that contain banned substances such as ephedrine or some traces of steroids / corticosteroids rather than from genuine attempts to cheat (which are becoming rarer in cycling because of the very stringent testing regime applied, although still occur). A life ban for this type of inadvertant doping (and there are rugby examples with the SA internationals and the Sale prop last season) would be impossible to uphold and would not be remotely fair.

However, I have a lot of sympathy for those advocating a life ban for deliberate attempts to cheat, by abuse of steroids or EPO / blood doping etc, where there is no justification for their use.

Samurai
As an aside on your comment, cocaine has definitely been used as a physical stimulant - it's use is described in a book on cycle racing written in the 1920s, and Ernest Shackleton used it during his Antarctic expedition. It is not however on the WADA list now as a performance enhancing drug (unlike amphetamines) - I think the argument is that the downside of coke outweighs any potential stimulant effects. This is why Martina Hingis was not formally suspended from tennis when she tested positive for coke prior to her first retirement.