For an International athlete, ignorance is not a valid excuse.I would have the first-time drug abuse ban at six months if the abuser doesn't seem to have known about it. Of course, if the education is there then there should be no excuse.
Yep and if their English is poor then explain it to them in their own language (or get somebody who can).For an International athlete, ignorance is not a valid excuse.
Well if it were an Australian for example (I'm not suggesting anything untoward) and if they caught after the World Cup, the ban would be meaningless.
I probably should have specified I meant it was harsh as a first time offense. Part of the reason why I think its harsh is the fact that steroids don't IMO benefit cricketers in the same way they benefit athletes who need to hit the ball harder or peddle faster. Might be poor reasoning for some, I admit, but its just the way I think.So it is ok for cricketer to steriod or whatever then?
And if you think that is harsh, in pro cycling, if a rider falls his drugs test (A and B) he will get a two year ban from the sport and then another two year ban from signing with one of the elite pro 20 teams. So technically is a four year ban.
Granted cricket doesn't have such a problem (as far as we know), but I can't believe the lax attitudes and people passed Warne's ban off as no such problem.
So...You CHEATED.What about ball-tampering? Should you be allowed to use nails (but not external substances) to rub the ball, etc.
I've used nails before to scratch the hell out of a ball before in overcast conditions when it was swinging like crazy. Don't know about the seam-lifting deal though.
I think fast bowlers benefit at the very least.I probably should have specified I meant it was harsh as a first time offense. Part of the reason why I think its harsh is the fact that steroids don't IMO benefit cricketers in the same way they benefit athletes who need to hit the ball harder or peddle faster. Might be poor reasoning for some, I admit, but its just the way I think.
Still speed recovery tho, which is what I'd assumed they'd be used for in the sport.I probably should have specified I meant it was harsh as a first time offense. Part of the reason why I think its harsh is the fact that steroids don't IMO benefit cricketers in the same way they benefit athletes who need to hit the ball harder or peddle faster. Might be poor reasoning for some, I admit, but its just the way I think.
Why should it be so harsh? Imo year long bans are way to severe for first time offences and if the offender is remorseful and promises to clean up his act, there is no reason, imo, to kick him out for a year or more. If he re-offends I have no problem feeding him to the sharks so to speak, but people make mistakes and I don't want people out for so long for a first mistake made.Out of interest why is that?
See, it's that sort of self-serving crap that makes me favour strict liability. It's easy to be remorseful when you've been caught, but I don't know of one sportsman who's held his hands up & said "Yeah, I'm using & I'm sorry" without a positive test. & precious few who've said it after one either...Why should it be so harsh? Imo year long bans are way to severe for first time offences and if the offender is remorseful and promises to clean up his act, there is no reason, imo, to kick him out for a year or more. If he re-offends I have no problem feeding him to the sharks so to speak, but people make mistakes and I don't want people out for so long for a first mistake made.
Although it must be said that 'two months' should just be a starting point. The fact that there could be no cricket during that period is an obvious flaw so I'd want the equivalent ban in terms of matches.
Can't agree at all mate. Alot of people deny it, make up excuses whatever. If a bloke is going to admit what he did was wrong and never do it again, I say ban him for a short while and then forgive him. Again, if he's caught a second time, throw the book at him, but I can't agree with your cynical outlook nor your heavy handed tactics for dealing with the problem.See, it's that sort of self-serving crap that makes me favour strict liability. It's easy to be remorseful when you've been caught, but I don't know of one sportsman who's held his hands up & said "Yeah, I'm using & I'm sorry" without a positive test. & precious few who've said it after one either...
I think fast bowlers benefit at the very least.
It was also noted the other day in the Aus press that one of the reasons Aus is so good in ODIs is that they have a several big, STRONG Batsmen ( Hayden, Symonds, White ), so again, strength is a benefit in batting.
Maybe it's not as big an effect as weightlifting ( for example ), but it's still an unfair advantage.
I agree its an advantage. But you'll agree its not bad enough to warrant a 1-2 year ban on first offense.Still speed recovery tho, which is what I'd assumed they'd be used for in the sport.
Sorry, but I don't agree, it's wilful cheating with malicious intent. Far worse than, say, Afridi's two-step on a good length, which was clearly done in the heat of the moment.I agree its an advantage. But you'll agree its not bad enough to warrant a 1-2 year ban on first offense.
Loving multi-quote tbh.
Six months wouldn't be a slap on the wrist, which what I would think is just right for a first offense.Actually I'm not really so hung up on the length of bans as their universal application. For them to be meaningful tho I do think they have to be beyond a slap on the wrist.
Before taking on the questions, I will jot down my thoughts on your above remarks..Modern cricket is but a shadow of the pure, gentleman's sport that it was once regarded as. In recent times, the decency, innocence and "clean" nature of cricket has fizzled away.
Today, the sport that we adore has been tarnished by three evils: the (ab)use of banned substances (steroids), the act of ball-tampering and the ominous threat of match-fixing.
Clearly, all three of these are forms of "cheating" in one way or another. Basically, I would like to hear your thoughts on these, particularly addressing the following questions.
Match fixing>Drugs>Ball tampering.Where do they stand with respect to one another in terms of severity? (Please answer the less obvious questions as well ...)
Uniform rules for all offences regardless of the country.What degree of punishment is appropriate for each violation?
What changes, if any, should be made to the policies governing each violation?
For example, changes regarding drug testing and preventive measures; changes regarding the loosening of ball-tampering restrictions as an advantage to bowlers; changes regarding the regulation of ball-tampering through umpires, match referees or external officials; changes regarding how match-fixing can be prevented, even if it may not exist today. In short, what changes should be made in your opinion?
Oh please. When exactly was it 'innocent'?Modern cricket is but a shadow of the pure, gentleman's sport that it was once regarded as. In recent times, the decency, innocence and "clean" nature of cricket has fizzled away.
Match Fixing >>>> Steroids = Ball Tampering = Appealing for a catch you dropped > appealing for a wicket you know is not outWhere do they stand with respect to one another in terms of severity? (Please answer the less obvious questions as well ...)
What degree of punishment is appropriate for each violation?
Every country should have a consistent drug policy. BCCI doesn't even test their players. The other policies are fine.What changes, if any, should be made to the policies governing each violation?