Strangely enough they do say petty crimes like theft and drug use go hand in hand. :rolleyes:
Printable View
Strangely enough they do say petty crimes like theft and drug use go hand in hand. :rolleyes:
Would everybody still have the same opinions, if this lad was still in our first team and running out in the colours every Saturday? Not really sure that the legalities of cannabis really apply?
https://www.usada.org/athletes/subst...marijuana-faq/Quote:
Why are cannabinoids on the WADA Prohibited List?
For something to be added to the WADA Prohibited List, it must meet two of the three inclusion criteria: a) it poses a health risk to athletes b) it has the potential to enhance performance and c) it violates the spirit of sport.
In 2011, WADA published a paper in Sports Medicine discussing the reasons marijuana and cannabinoids meet the criteria. Below are excerpts from this publication that address the three criteria:
“Athletes who smoke cannabis or Spice in-competition potentially endanger themselves and others because of increased risk taking, slower reaction times and poor executive function or decision making.”
“Based on current animal and human studies as well as on interviews with athletes and information from the field, cannabis can be performance enhancing for some athletes and sports disciplines.”
“Use of illicit drugs that are harmful to health and that may have performance-enhancing properties is not consistent with the athlete as a role model for young people around the world”.
In 2019, WADA exempted cannabidiol (CBD) from this category. However, all other cannabinoids, whether natural or synthetic, are prohibited in-competition. Even though CBD is permitted at all times, this article explains the legal and anti-doping issues that continue to make these products risky for athletes.
I can think of a player who was rumoured to be a regular dope smoker. He scored the sixth goal in one of our greatest victories.
Would people who say cannabis gives an unfair advantage be prepared to say his contributions to the team should be ignored. Perhaps the points should be voided.
Fair enough, but we all know it's not a rumour. Just as we all know the rules make no sense at all.
It's against the law to drive dangerously, yet football had no problem with allowing players who have done that to keep on playing.
Gambling on your own team is wrong, but the authorities are very supportive of managers and players who go down that road.
Sometimes the law is an ass.
I don't disagreee with any of that, but the rules are what they are.
Like most people I break rules all the time - speeding, just a wee bit, for example. There are stretches of road that I use almost every day where I think the limit is too low. If I go too fast and get caught and fined then I'll accept that - I know the risk.
If driving 1mph over the limit meant an automatic 2 year ban, yes that would be extremely harsh, but you can be sure I wouldn't do it.
I think it might make sense for a review of drug testing rules. I don't think this decision makes any sense as most of the kids who look up to these sportsmen will know the punishment isn't fair.
If anything it could drive more youngsters away from sport if they feel that the people running it are idiots.
Again, I'm not saying he shouldn't of got the ban or that he wouldn't of known the consequences.
I'm saying that in this day in age it's ridiculous that marijuana is still prohibited by such draconian laws.
The rules are clear and it's 100% his own fault he's got the ban, I agree.
The point I'm trying to make is that the laws in this country regarding cannabis use are severely outdated, as is a lot of people's perception of it. This thread is proof of that.
There is an alternative argument that they shouldn't train for six months solid, at that level. I believe professional athletes factor in lie weeks, for example. Their regime sounds like they will end up over trained for one race.
As a side note, it's interesting that we all define normality as what we personally think is the right thing to do.
What detrimental effects would occasional cannabis use have on an athlete, and how would they balance out against the benefits such as relaxation of mind and body?
A bit like Cannabis use then?
That's hardly the basis to make a judgement. Not a pop at you, I just think it highlights the lack of joined up thinking on the subject.
I feel a two year ban is not the way to help recovery if there is a problem. As I said, if someone reports gambling problems, which could impact much more directly on sporting integrity, they are supported.
I'd be more inclined to agree with the ban if it was a drug that enhances performance. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Maybe so but irrelevant as far as Duthie's sporting ban goes under the current anti-doping rules. See previous posts and JeMeSouviens above.
One of the current problems is that when the global rules on sanctions (in the WADA Code) were last changed in 2015, all references to whether the substance was "intended to enhance performance" were removed. This was because that factor was leading to considerable discrepancy in sanctions case to case depending on who was judging on the matter and imposing the sanction, with even different top-of-the-tree arbitrators from the Court of Arbitration for Sport taking different views. So currently if it is on the banned list and found in your sample, that is it no matter whether you intended to enhance your performance or not.
However, when the new WADA Code come into effect from 2021 (after a 3-year review process) there will be a newly defined category "substances of abuse".
"If the Athlete can establish that any ingestion or use occurred Out-of-Competition and was unrelated to sport performance, then the periodof Ineligibility shall be three months ineligibility." And this can be reduced to one-month if the athlete undertakes a treatment programme, all as long as it is a first offence.
These new rules were agreed 25 November i.e. before the decision on Duthie was finalised, but they don't come into effect 1 Jan 2021, c.10 weeks before Duthie's two-year ban ends. So yes, his two-year ban is harsh.
There is a general principle in law - can't recall what it is called - anyone? - that where a more lenient law has been agreed, but is not yet effective, you can get the benefit of the new more lenient law. But there is no mention of this in the written decision.