Originally Posted by BoyBrumby
I'm not sure I totally concur with your analogy, but if a lesser ban is given for masking agents than for steroids it strikes me as a double standard. There would be no incentive for a player to admit to wrong-doing if he knew he'd get a lesser ban. I'd similarly argue that avoiding a drugs test is as bad as failing one.
Over here Rio Ferdinand (English Association Footballer) was banned for 8 months for missing a test; reputedly due to his own forgetfulness/stupidity. Our FA left him out of an England squad before the ban was official (so as to not prejudice any results we got) & the rest of the squad briefly threatened to strike in a (misguided IMHO) show of support for Rio. There's a clear implication that they believed missing the test was somehow seen as a lesser transgression, but if it was treated as such the guilty (and I'm not for one second implying Rio was guilty) might as well never take another test!
Why didn't he receive two years? This is the thing varying degrees of guilty, is missing a test as bad as testing positive for a masking agent, is testing positive for a masking agent as bad as testing positive for steroids? I can't remember anyone off hand admiting to being gulity of taking PED.