Are recreational drugs as big a crime as performing enhancing?

Tomthepost

I write this on the back of a rugby story really. English International Matt Stevens failed a drugs test due to taking recreational drugs and faces a ban of up to two years.
I posted here because most commonly it is footballers who fail drugs tests due to recreational drugs.
Do people here think that they should be treated in the same manner?

Mikeyt086

No.

Anyone who has experienced playing football while stoned will tell you it does NOT improve your game...

But drugs are illegal, so dont do them if your a pro footballer.

Drugs are bad... M'kay...

Neil3030

IMO it's more a case of image/example setting/dear god someone think of the children, than it is concern over people gaining an advantage through the use of recreational drugs.

dioltas

I think Neil is right, but I don't have any problem with footballers using recreational drugs.

Frisbee

Adrian Mutu

You could hardly call cocaine a performance enhancing drug...
imo it was used recreationaly anyway

Chardee MacDennis

Frisbee wrote: »

Adrian Mutu

You could hardly call cocaine a performance enhancing drug...
imo it was used recreationaly anyway

hmm i had just read this article this morning! anyway i think there should be a ban but not as long as using performance enhancing drugs. For example I think Mutu has been very harshly treated for using cocaine...

eagle eye

Well using recreational drugs is illegal, so the pusishment should be severe.
Performance enhancing drugs affect a game of football so that is also quite serious.

Both penalties should be severe, maybe equally severe.

The use of both is so foolish and will destroy you long term.

Opinions on whether you have a problem or not with people taking them should not be stated here as there are plenty of young people reading this forum I'd imagine.

SuprSi

BastardPrince wrote: »

hmm i had just read this article this morning! anyway i think there should be a ban but not as long as using performance enhancing drugs. For example I think Mutu has been very harshly treated for using cocaine...

I agree. While he was incredibly stupid, he was made a complete scapegoat of. I believe, because professional sports players are supposed to be role models, a ban should be incurred, though a lesser one than if he had cheated and attempted to gain advantages through performance enhancing drugs.

In fairness, if a professional sports player is stupid enough to do drugs while doing something that millions upon millions of people dream of doing, they deserve some sort of punishment. Talent doesn't negate responsibility.

Wreck

There should be no extra punishment for sportsmen/women for using recreational drugs. They should only be subject to the same penalties as the rest of us.

And as for the role model bullsh1t, don't get me started on that.

eagle eye

SuprSi wrote: »

I agree. While he was incredibly stupid, he was made a complete scapegoat of. I believe, because professional sports players are supposed to be role models, a ban should be incurred, though a lesser one than if he had cheated and attempted to gain advantages through performance enhancing drugs.

In fairness, if a professional sports player is stupid enough to do drugs while doing something that millions upon millions of people dream of doing, they deserve some sort of punishment. Talent doesn't negate responsibility.

How can you say that a recreational drug activity would not enhance your performance over the short term.

Lets say Player A has some personal problems and decides to take a line or two on a Thursday and has a good time, due to this good time he feels better the next day and his problems are not so important right then, so he plays better on the Saturday than he would have done had he not taken anything at all.
Thats performance enhancing right there by using recreational and don't say it couldn't happen.

HalloweenJack

Professional footballers are people as well. I don't think they should be treated any differently then a normal person would be i.e. if your boss knew you were doing drugs, would they suspend you?

Sportspeople aren't the only role models out there. Whether we like it or not, celebrities are as well and a hell of a lot of them get their drug stories detailed in the media but they never get sacked by their record company/telly company/whatever. Why should it be any different for sportspeople?

I agree that Adrian Mutu was completely shafted by Chelsea in that incident. Totally unfair on him.

I think players taking performance enhancing drugs should be punished by FIFA, FAI, whoever, but players who do recreational drugs shouldn't be. If the Courts want to handle it, let them.

Wreck

eagle eye wrote: »

How can you say that a recreational drug activity would not enhance your performance over the short term.

Lets say Player A has some personal problems and decides to take a line or two on a Thursday and has a good time, due to this good time he feels better the next day and his problems are not so important right then, so he plays better on the Saturday than he would have done had he not taken anything at all.
Thats performance enhancing right there by using recreational and don't say it couldn't happen.

Man, you are so wrong it's not even funny. How do you think being up all night high on coke is going to make him feel better the next day? Physically, he'll feel like sh!t, his personal problems will not have gone away, he won't be able to train properly...actually I can't believe you are even suggesting this.

eagle eye

Wreck wrote: »

Man, you are so wrong it's not even funny. How do you think being up all night high on coke is going to make him feel better the next day? Physically, he'll feel like sh!t, his personal problems will not have gone away, he won't be able to train properly...actually I can't believe you are even suggesting this.

Wat, you are saying that a nights entertainmeant does not have healing factors of any sort?

And maybe not coke then, lets say he has a smoke instead.

Bottle_of_Smoke

eagle eye wrote: »

Wat, you are saying that a nights entertainmeant does not have healing factors of any sort?

And maybe not coke then, lets say he has a smoke instead.

Then his stamina & concentration's affected negatively.

event

it depends

if its in their contract, as i suspect it is, then tough

most footballers would have in their contracts a clause that says that if they bring their employers names into disrepute, they can be suspended/sacked/etc

Eirebear

Wreck wrote: »

There should be no extra punishment for sportsmen/women for using recreational drugs. They should only be subject to the same penalties as the rest of us.

And as for the role model bullsh1t, don't get me started on that.

Therefore their employer could turn around and sack them?

astrofool

Looking beyond the physical side of things, sport at the highest level is all about being in the right mental state to perform under huge pressures. Drugs (even recreational) alter the user's mental state, and should be rightly banned from sports.

SectionF

Assuming they are not performance-enhancing, they should be dealt with by the legal system, with any sanction from clubs or football authorities made on the same basis as other crimes, e.g. violence a la Joey Barton.
I agree that Mutu's punishment was extremely harsh.

Wreck

Eirebear wrote: »

Therefore their employer could turn around and sack them?

If I took recreational drugs and was caught, it's pretty unlikely my employer would ever find out. If my employer did find out, there is no way I could be sacked for this, unless it actually occured while at work.
Footballer's contracts my well have clauses with regard to this, and a footballer could probably have his contract terminated by the club. Personnally I can't see it making much sense from the club's side of things, as they will lose an asset for no gain.

Frankie Lee

If using recreational drugs is worth a lengthy ban due to it being illegal then surely being convicted of assault or drink driving should lead to a lengthy ban also.
Seeing as the reason is being a good role model, I don't think taking recreational drugs is any worse than breaking a glass over someones face.

Frankie Lee

astrofool wrote: »

Looking beyond the physical side of things, sport at the highest level is all about being in the right mental state to perform under huge pressures. Drugs (even recreational) alter the user's mental state, and should be rightly banned from sports.

Then coffee and cigarettes should be banned also.

Wreck

astrofool wrote: »

Looking beyond the physical side of things, sport at the highest level is all about being in the right mental state to perform under huge pressures. Drugs (even recreational) alter the user's mental state, and should be rightly banned from sports.

Plenty of things, from sex and massages to geting soaked in the rain alter people's mental state. This is not a grounds for banning anything from sports.

eagle eye

Frankie Lee wrote: »

If using recreational drugs is worth a lengthy ban due to it being illegal then surely being convicted of assault or drink driving should lead to a lengthy ban also.
Seeing as the reason is being a good role model, I don't think taking recreational drugs is any worse than breaking a glass over someones face.

Well there are criminal penalties for what you mention so I don't agree, thats being punished twice for the same thing.

Failing a drug test in sports is not a criminal matter.

Frankie Lee

eagle eye wrote: »

Well there are criminal penalties for what you mention so I don't agree, thats being punished twice for the same thing.

Failing a drug test in sports is not a criminal matter.

Sorry you are right.

eagle eye

Anyways I've had enough of this rubbish. I hope the mods lock it up as its just gone plain childish.

And if you are going to do things that your employers don't want you to do or are against the rules of the game, its only right that you get reprimanded properly. Sack them or ban them for a year either way and it will hopefully deter others. There is no difference really, the rules state its not allowed so thats that.

Royale with Cheese

I posted on this in the rugby forum, but that thread's been deleted for some reason.

Basically I think governing bodies should stay out of issues involving players with recreational drugs problems. They're abusing their position of being able to test for performance enhancing drugs. The players aren't cheating at the end of the day which is why those tests are there. These matters should be dealt with internally.

As for players being role models, there are plenty of other things they can do to set a bad example for youngsters which wouldn't end in a 2 year ban.

SuprSi

There is nothing the legal system can do about drugs being detected in a persons system. If there was, do you think Matt Stevens would have been so frank and honest about what he did? You cannot be prosecuted for this, only for selling/dealing or being in the possession of drugs. Therefore, the matter rests solely with the sporting body or club to whom the player is contracted to. If their contract mentions no drugs of any kind, they're in breach of their contract and open to bans or other such punishments.

Outside this, as mentioned previously, drugs are illegal and although our views on whether certain individuals should be classed as sporting heroes or role models differ greatly, fans look up to these people, a responsibility the average person doesn't have to shoulder. What he did reflects poorly on him (and indirectly on the sport, to a lesser extent) which is why his club and the governing body have to react so strongly.

eagle eye

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

I posted on this in the rugby forum, but that thread's been deleted for some reason.

Basically I think governing bodies should stay out of issues involving players with recreational drugs problems. They're abusing their position of being able to test for performance enhancing drugs. ban.

They are cheating if its against the rules of the game to use those recreational drugs. And if you don't ban them all, there is a possibility of one being used as a masking agent for another.

Guy:Incognito

Im not up on the chemistry etc of drugs but is it possible recreational drugs could be used to mask performance enhancing drugs?

EDIT.Dammit, just saw eagle eye's post.:) I'm claiming rights to my own thoughts though as the posts were quite close.

Royale with Cheese

eagle eye wrote: »

They are cheating if its against the rules of the game to use those recreational drugs. And if you don't ban them all, there is a possibility of one being used as a masking agent for another.

I'm no chemist, so if that's the case then fair enough. If not then they're definitely not cheating if it's going to make their game worse. My main problem with these cases is the length of the bans handed down. Mutu got 7 months or so which isn't that bad, but in Rugby Wendell Sailor got 2 years. It's a bit of a joke. Players can go out and intentionally try to hurt somebody on the pitch and get a 3 match ban, do some Cocaine while you're nowhere near a football pitch and get banned for 2 years. It doesn't make sense.

eagle eye

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

they're definitely not cheating if it's going to make their game worse.

But they are in this instance also. They are making themselves worse and cheating their employers, fans of the team and helping the other team to have a better opportunity to win, so basically its the same thing as performance enhancing drugs only the result changes in that your performance worsens and enhances the chances of your opponent.

Tusky

eagle eye wrote: »

How can you say that a recreational drug activity would not enhance your performance over the short term.

Lets say Player A has some personal problems and decides to take a line or two on a Thursday and has a good time, due to this good time he feels better the next day

heh - I take it you have no experience with said recreational drugs ? Because what youve just said there is ridiculous.

invincibleirish

If i'm not mistaken within the NBA there is a tolerance allowed for players who smoke weed in the off season. Any footballer who spends the night before a game indulging doesn't deserve to play, but seeing as they are professionals its unlikely they'll be doing that anymore then them being on the piss before a game. If a player enjoys recreational drugs then as long as it doesn't impact upon his game then its no ones business within sport as to what he gets up to or not.

Professional sports law mimics real life drugs laws in that they are totally arcane and outdated within the modern world.

eagle eye

Tusky wrote: »

heh - I take it you have no experience with said recreational drugs ? Because what youve just said there is ridiculous.

Well I know this was rhetorical as you were so certain you were right but unfortunately for both you and me, you have it completely wrong.

However after a couple of years in the wilderness I realised the amount of money and time I had wasted, let alone the damage it can do healthwise and so moved on with my life.
And I did almost everything.

Royale with Cheese

eagle eye wrote: »

But they are in this instance also. They are making themselves worse and cheating their employers, fans of the team and helping the other team to have a better opportunity to win, so basically its the same thing as performance enhancing drugs only the result changes in that your performance worsens and enhances the chances of your opponent.

If it makes their games worse they'll get dropped, and somebody else who isn't on a come down will slot in. Look they may be breaking the rules, but they're not cheating. There's a difference. The drug tests are in place to make sure cheating does not happen. After that the FA shouldn't be involved. By all means release them from their contract, suspend them etc. if the club wants to. It should be a matter for the club, not the FA.

Fratton Fred

So you buy a player for 15m, pay him a **** load of money every week and he turns hmself into a coke head with it, you offer him help because you are concerend for his wellbeing, he rejects it. His performnaces start dropping and he is getting more and more withdrawn from the rest of the squad. You offer to send him to the priory to sort himself out, he again turns this offer down.

Then, in direct breach of his contract, he is out clubbing past 1am the night before a training session, so you shop him to the authorities and sack him.

how is that treating him harshly?

eagle eye

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

If it makes their games worse they'll get dropped, and somebody else who isn't on a come down will slot in. Look they may be breaking the rules, but they're not cheating. There's a difference. The drug tests are in place to make sure cheating does not happen. After that the FA shouldn't be involved. By all means release them from their contract, suspend them etc. if the club wants to. It should be a matter for the club, not the FA.

They are cheating their employers and the fans.
Your argument is childish, you are saying they get dropped and thats the end of it. What about the employer who hired them in good faith and pays them huge sums of money to perform at their best?

Royale with Cheese

My argument is childish? Your argument contains no logic. You've even contradicted yourself just there. What about the employers? They have no control over the situation if the FA are calling the shots on their asset. I'm sure it's in the players contracts that they can't do drugs, so the team could decide whether to pay to rehabilitate the player or sack him and look for their transfer fee back through the courts. A 2 year ban leaves them with no options.

There are any number of things a player can do to make themselves play worse. 99% of them wouldn't result in a 2 year ban.

There are any number of things a player can do to make themselves out to be a bad role model. Again how many would result in a 2 year ban?

invincibleirish

Eagle Eye if you have had substance abuse issues then perhaps you're the wrong person to be advocating a hard line taken on players who might use recreational drugs. Remember, there are plenty of peeps out there who enjoy these drugs without getting into harms way in their professional lives.

For footballers to be smoking weed all night before a game is irresponsible, but if a player enjoys a spliff on the Thursday night before a game, it will have no negative impact on his performance on the Saturday but will show up in his urine tests for which he is liable to be disciplined for. Ridiculous situation imo.

Tusky

eagle eye wrote: »

Well I know this was rhetorical as you were so certain you were right but unfortunately for both you and me, you have it completely wrong.

However after a couple of years in the wilderness I realised the amount of money and time I had wasted, let alone the damage it can do healthwise and so moved on with my life.
And I did almost everything.

Well if thats the case then you would know that in the days following the use of said drugs, your worries, problems & anxieties are heightened. Never mind the negative physical effects. A player going out on a Wed or Thur night and having a great time while using said drugs, would be of absolutely no benefit to him come kick off on a Saturday afternoon.

eagle eye

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

My argument is childish? Your argument contains no logic. You've even contradicted yourself just there. What about the employers? They have no control over the situation if the FA are calling the shots on their asset. I'm sure it's in the players contracts that they can't do drugs, so the team could decide whether to pay to rehabilitate the player or sack him and look for their transfer fee back through the courts. A 2 year ban leaves them with no options.

There are any number of things a player can do to make themselves play worse. 99% of them wouldn't result in a 2 year ban.

There are any number of things a player can do to make themselves out to be a bad role model. Again how many would result in a 2 year ban?

Look I've explained a couple of things, firstly the masking element that could be abused. Secondly they are cheating the fans and their employer, and thirdly as a direct result of taking these drugs which you say affect performance negatively they are enhancing the chances of the other team winning.
The FA have every right to be involved if a player can affect the outcome of a game by using performance altering drugs.

invincibleirish

1) logic too spurious and too many ifs and buts, if a player wants to engage in doping he will eventually get caught.

2) as explained recreational drugs will not have an impact, negative or otherwise, if taken in moderation.

3)the FA is not big brother, using your logic Alcohol should be banned from consumption by players.