Quote:
|
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.