While the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has a duty to keep the sport clean, there is need to re-visit some of the rules around doping. There should be minimal, borderline cases which deserve a warning rather than lengthy suspensions of between two to four years.
The severity of the case must determine the length of the suspension. Chiefly, there should be obvious benefit to the athlete for the use of the banned substance. How does doping help a rider that much? The gains are minimal or next to non-existent.
A drug can help with endurance yes, but in some cases it does not alter the raw talent. It can be argued that the substances enhance performance, but it must be looked with a critical eye how it improves output. In some instances the athletes take these substances unaware as the list keeps growing. Granted, it is down to the athlete to be responsible for what goes into their body. However, judging by the number of sportsperson who fall foul of the doping laws, something must be done.
I don’t want to assume that all the athletes who dope are naïve. Yes, some deserve what is coming their way, but in the case of marginal cases, WADA should temper justice with mercy. At the present it appears that all is cast in stone once a banned substance is found in the system. But each case must be treated on its merit, chiefly what are the benefits for taking the banned substance? If the benefit is minimal, then surely the punishment should reflect such. Hefty fines and suspended sentences can also act as a deterrent in borderline cases. My point should not be misconstrued to say I condone taking performance enhancing substances, no, that habit must be kicked out. But just like in a court of law, a crime does not automatically mean the maximum sentence.
Each case is treated on its own merit. WADA should consider correctional and not just punitive, almost one-size-fits-all approach. The punitive only approach has led to growing concerns over the weaponisation of doping. The efforts to rid sport of the vice is commendable but it now appears heavy-handed.
Anything that is considered to enhance performance carries a heavy sentence without due consideration if the athlete derived maximum benefits or not. In the court of law, such is considered and it reflects in the ultimate sentence. Let it be so in sport. I am not saying let it be a lawless jungle, but let there be considerations for circumstances around how the athlete came to dope. As it is, those who do so intentionally and unintentional appear to suffer more or less the same consequences. It is the same for those who benefit or could potentially benefit from the doping versus those whose doping might be inconsequential. But for now rules are rules and athletes ought to know better and play by the book.
