DeLuca
- Thread starter jenks33
- Start date
Different sport I know, however if one member of an athletics relay team ultimately failed a drug test, ALL members of the team would forfeit their medals and their race times etc would be expunged from the official records.
So it does happen however in my opinion it would be extremely unlikely to happen in this case, with maybe some teams thinking 'There but for the Grace of God……'
So it does happen however in my opinion it would be extremely unlikely to happen in this case, with maybe some teams thinking 'There but for the Grace of God……'
The thing is that the elite league doesn't operate in isolation. The iihf and other world sports bodies have certain rules around doping. The league would need to be seen to dealing with the case appropriately. The question is how much latitude would be allowed and whether such wiggle room would be applied because of the club involved.
Of course, until the official announcement, joking aside, we don't know what the issue was, and so, what an appropriate response would look like.
Of course, until the official announcement, joking aside, we don't know what the issue was, and so, what an appropriate response would look like.
I can't recall any occasion where a club has been penalised for a failed doping test in any other sport (not sure about baseball where it was rife for a while).
In order to penalise the club you'd have to have significant evidence that they were aware of the events leading to the failed test.
I can't stand the Steelers for a lot of reasons, but unless they've been aware then they have no case to answer in my opinion.
In order to penalise the club you'd have to have significant evidence that they were aware of the events leading to the failed test.
I can't stand the Steelers for a lot of reasons, but unless they've been aware then they have no case to answer in my opinion.
Maybe, a more appropriate punishment for the offending team would be that they would be unable to replace the offender on the roster until an equal amount of games that the offender took part in had elapsed.??
Either way the EIHL would have to follow whatever rules laid down by the IIHF, as already stated.
Either way the EIHL would have to follow whatever rules laid down by the IIHF, as already stated.
Punishment for drug use in sport does appear to be more geared (no pun intended) towards the individual rather than the team they are representing. Admittedly I don't know much about athletics (where it appears to be more straightforward with individuals losing titles etc) but in football the major controversies around performance enhancers or stimulants have resulted in personal bans and fines with the club escaping any liability - from what I can tell. (No idea on any rugby examples?)
Which seems odd to me. Liability should of course rest with the player as it is his/her ultimate responsibility but the crime here is not 'victimless'. De Luca is a 3rd line forward according to matches this season, but what if he was their main man? There could have been teams that lost points as a result of his being juiced (fortunately for the purposes of this comment I don't think he's had a huge impact this season). It's also not just the case for directly affected teams (I.e. for example if De Luca scored a winner against Belfast the Giants would rightly feel aggrieved that they lost 2 points, which the Steelers would retain) but also in the immediate example of Giants v Steelers what if that goal stopped the Giants winning the league? Or the Steelers qualified for the playoffs at another team's expense because of that goal...
What I'm saying is that the Steelers aren't the main perpetrators, but the victims are the other sides in the EIHL - as it's performance enhancing. I would think that it would be fair for the Steelers (or Chelsea, or the Devils or whoever) to be held liable to a degree and for them then to take further action to recover any losses from the player.
Again I don't have any knowledge of IIHF rules on this so don't know, but generally (whichever sport we consider) it seems wrong to me that a club can benefit from having a dosed-up player, and keep any points from games he played in, only really having to sack the player.
I'm actually taking the Steelers out of this when thinking about it personally and did some reading around the Mutu case with Chelsea.
If Chelsea had been fined, and/or docked points (which could have lead to missed titles and commercial opportunities) then they could have taken civil action against Mutu (compared to how they did, which was a bit 'cake and eat it' for my mind) for their loss. But what actually happened was that Mutu was sacked and had the book thrown at him by the FA and FIFA but Chelsea were allowed to keep the points received as a result of Mutu's goals.
It's one of those situations where it gets very difficult to sort out in practice and in that sense reminds me of the Carlos Tevez situation between West Ham and Sheffield United back in the day.
But then you have someone like Maradona who was high most of the end of his career, so then going back do you expunge honors (both team and personal)? That would be a nightmare. Further, what if such issues only came to light years later?
Can quickly escalate into a warren of hypotheticals. Which may mean the current state of player banning and leaving the club free of sanction is the simplest (if not most equitable) solution.
(Can you tell I can't sleep?!)
Which seems odd to me. Liability should of course rest with the player as it is his/her ultimate responsibility but the crime here is not 'victimless'. De Luca is a 3rd line forward according to matches this season, but what if he was their main man? There could have been teams that lost points as a result of his being juiced (fortunately for the purposes of this comment I don't think he's had a huge impact this season). It's also not just the case for directly affected teams (I.e. for example if De Luca scored a winner against Belfast the Giants would rightly feel aggrieved that they lost 2 points, which the Steelers would retain) but also in the immediate example of Giants v Steelers what if that goal stopped the Giants winning the league? Or the Steelers qualified for the playoffs at another team's expense because of that goal...
What I'm saying is that the Steelers aren't the main perpetrators, but the victims are the other sides in the EIHL - as it's performance enhancing. I would think that it would be fair for the Steelers (or Chelsea, or the Devils or whoever) to be held liable to a degree and for them then to take further action to recover any losses from the player.
Again I don't have any knowledge of IIHF rules on this so don't know, but generally (whichever sport we consider) it seems wrong to me that a club can benefit from having a dosed-up player, and keep any points from games he played in, only really having to sack the player.
I'm actually taking the Steelers out of this when thinking about it personally and did some reading around the Mutu case with Chelsea.
If Chelsea had been fined, and/or docked points (which could have lead to missed titles and commercial opportunities) then they could have taken civil action against Mutu (compared to how they did, which was a bit 'cake and eat it' for my mind) for their loss. But what actually happened was that Mutu was sacked and had the book thrown at him by the FA and FIFA but Chelsea were allowed to keep the points received as a result of Mutu's goals.
It's one of those situations where it gets very difficult to sort out in practice and in that sense reminds me of the Carlos Tevez situation between West Ham and Sheffield United back in the day.
But then you have someone like Maradona who was high most of the end of his career, so then going back do you expunge honors (both team and personal)? That would be a nightmare. Further, what if such issues only came to light years later?
Can quickly escalate into a warren of hypotheticals. Which may mean the current state of player banning and leaving the club free of sanction is the simplest (if not most equitable) solution.
(Can you tell I can't sleep?!)
I wonder how often the drug testers turn up at the rink? during my time with the team it would a couple of times at home with a similar number at away games.
It was unreal, my wife was the medical/nurse who the BHA would have at testing sites in the south but it was so disjointed that they would telephone to let her know where she was needed and would leave a message with me if she wasnt at home.
The most bizarre instance I can recall was when Stevie Lyle was selected for a drug test at Wembley when he was a minor (<16)
It was unreal, my wife was the medical/nurse who the BHA would have at testing sites in the south but it was so disjointed that they would telephone to let her know where she was needed and would leave a message with me if she wasnt at home.
The most bizarre instance I can recall was when Stevie Lyle was selected for a drug test at Wembley when he was a minor (<16)