Performance Enhancing Drugs Speech (Issues)

Lets be artless here, taking drugs to improve performance isnt a spur-of-the-moment mistake, its a closely planned and thought pop commission of cheating. Its non like they argon sold over the counter at your local chemists (or argon they? ) People a lot say they dont exigency to envision druggies representing their country (wherever they ar from) and so they should be vetoned for life, just screw jockstraps that take performance enhancing drugs be denominate as druggies. Their physically fit in shape and generally healthy, everything a common idea of a druggie isnt.Lifetime bans could produce less convictions, be give birth harsher punishment means greater nitty-gritty of proof First, the reality is that a biography ban represents the harshest possible punishment for an athlete, for it takes come in their livelihood, often without a fall-back plan ( require a 26-year-old cyclist what their second c beer prize is, for recitation). It is, literally, a episode of off with their heads, because you may as well do this. Now, in order to do this fairly, you have to be absolutely, 100% certain that you are knockout a psyche who deserves it.And sadly, the perception is, as of this moment, non able to provide those guarantees, and thither is always some doubt if an athlete requisites to contest the origin of a doping positive. So ask the following If there is a 2% misadventure of a spurious positive test, then how comfortable are we issuing lifetime bans? Then ask If there is a 10% chance of the positive dope test be the result of contamination of supplements, then are we comfortable with a lifetime ban? Now, imagine being the decision master who has to evaluate a legal case where the athlete says I do not contest the positive dope test, but my defence is that it came from a supplement (or meat). I was therefore not cheating. Can you confidently judge and condemn this somebody as a cheat? Given the science of anti-doping today, and the complexity of these cases, Id argue that you simply pilenot fudge this decision, and if your punishment option is to hand out a lifetime ban, Id argue that youre furthest less likely to find dopers felonious when presented with this defenceWe do not pauperization our young people looking up to people who use drugs, but we too do not want to flip those who are in admired positions of proposed function to be forgiven of their sins. However, we are more(prenominal) than free to allow those who use illicit lane drugs a second and third, sometimes steady a fourth chance at resolving themselves from what, these days, is being regarded as a disease instead of what it started out as- a very poor in- mortal choice on the person who is now using.Steroids are not safe. We all know this. use of goods and services of these sorts of drugs, when not prescribed for an actual ailment, cause more damage than good. We do not like when our heroes are found out to simultaneously be human as well as talented. It is far easier to see this sort of behavior when it is displayed by a rock star or a spoiled rich kid, but when it is our heroes, we want to punish them severely, and more so than we would if the person in question were some highroad hooligan with no hope for a future.We will gladly help the hooligan, because that makes us a hero. We have helped a person lift themselves out of a personal and spiritual poverty and in the appendage have been given the chance to advertise the world that because of something that we did, whether it is directly or indirectly, that person is now, in the eyes of better society, strong again, and it was all due to something we did for them.We are more willing to uplift an entire state of people who cannot even remember their hit rather than allow those who could be the example of having done the bad thing, and now, after a lot of work and LOTS of apologizing, be the example that they were cut out to be. I say let them have a sec ond and third chance at it all. And why not? We let check heads, meth heads, alcoholics and wife beaters do it. wherefore not someone who has access to the media who can truly be the role sit that they did not ask to be when they write those multi-million dollar contracts?