let the punishment fit the crime

as doping control and sporting governing bodies begin to crack down on doped athletes and the media takes more notice, there is an inevitable conversation around the punishments that are handed down to athletes, coaches and doctors. this is clearly a big consideration for reasons of justice, deterrence, and correcting record books. however, it often seems that the punishments given to athletes are arbitrary and inter-sport offenses often have vastly different ways of reprimanding athletes for effectively the same offenses. so what is an appropriate punishment for athletes who are caught doping?

the adage, “let the punishment fit the crime” can act as a great grounding when considering how to appropriately punish athletes. just as in the criminal justice system, the use of mandatory minimum sentences removes the opportunity for discretion on the part of judiciary committees, and so i will argue here for an appropriately weighted punishment scale.

in a previous post, we discussed the option of legalizing or permitting the indiscriminate use of peds by athletes, and have, in my opinion, nullified that as an option. therefore, we should start at the opposite end of the spectrum and consider that for any athlete found to be administering any controlled substance, should immediately receive a lifelong ban from all semi-professional and professional sporting endeavors, forfeiting all previous awards and records, and paying a fine equal to the amount declared as taxable income for the duration of that individuals professional athletic career, payable to an international governing body of doping control (a reformed wada, if you will). too harsh? perhaps for the vast majority of doping cases, yes, it goes too far. but in those cases where guilt was readily admitted, doping was conducted specifically for sports improvement in a manner that was both illegal and unethical, without regard for the integrity of the sport or other competitors, it is my opinion that it is a fitting punishment. now this should not be discriminately applied - lance armstrong is clearly one of those athletes that fits this criteria, but so is marion jones, tyson gay and rita jeptoo. although wada has floated the idea that lifelong bans would perhaps be illegal, it is clear that current punishments do not serve as a great deterrent. moreover, a several year ban, whether 2 or 4 years as proposed by wada, does not necessarily result in a ‘level playing field’ as the epigenetic effects of doping are not well enough understood for us to declare a life-long doper as ‘clean’ even years after the cessation of doping.

how then do we appropriately proportion punishments from our starting point of absolute bans and fines? well, it needs to be based on a tiered system of banned substances, with consideration to previous filed (prior to the testing date) of therapeutic use exemptions (click here for thoughts on tues), and discretion by the committee as to the intent of the athlete. for example, clearly epo has health benefits, but it is highly unlikely that an athlete would require a tue for epo, or accidental be exposed to epo injections. therefore, as a tier 1 substance, with little recourse as to the intent of an athlete found with rhepo in their system, it is clear that the punishment should be as close to the extreme end of the spectrum as possible i.e. lifetime ban from all athletic contests, forfeit of awards and records and perhaps a minimum fine of 25% of professional sporting career income. however, substances that are controlled, but may also be accidentally ingested in small doses due to poor farming practices, such as clenbuterol (although i found this claim dubious at best), would result in a lifetime ban, perhaps without a fine or rescinding previous awards. then there would be the category of offenders for which were caught doping using a controlled substance that they otherwise had a tue issued and it recently (debate can be had on the time frame) expired without application for renewal. in this instance, a ban from sport must still be applied, but based on the tier of drug, will be proportioned.

in order for these punishments to be enacted in a consistent manner, a third party arbiter must be appointed. although this has been tried before with wada, it is still the only feasible and neutral way to appropriately deliver these verdicts. whatever this international organization becomes, it must consist of representative of all countries under its authority, operate as a non-profit entity, operate in a democratic manner, with the salaries of all positions fixed across years of operation. moreover, this organization should be completely transparent with its financial records, testing procedures and cooperation with all other entities in the space. it can not be up to individual sporting bodies to control this, since they have vested interests in protecting athletes; likewise with nation-specific bodies. any other suggestions appear to also have drawbacks, but the conversation should be open to all possibilities until we find a solution that works both in theory and practice.

what do you think is the best way to punish athletes caught doping? how would you set up an organization to catch dopers and protect the clean athletes? comment below or join the conversation on twitter!