Run-Down Forums

[Indeurr]

..this is my proposal:
Since they do keep samples for up to 8 years, the athletes participating in any meet sanctioned by either IAAF or an Area fedderation should be paid only half--the--money due; the other half should be paid only after 8 years pass.
Why?
Because when they would be asked back to give it back, they would have no excuse, and "I spent it" is not a great excuse. It could motivate them to invest it wisely. Moreover, they would have to think about the future such as Wills (who should get the money in case that they die or are in coma).
_________________
http://vincovitanj.tripod.com/Do_not_be_a_victim1/index.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u43o595CARQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x22Alfgv0DY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgcD2akmeJc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB0RcWYMwXU
one hand clapping

[Dan]

I imagine you'd have a tough time getting that one by the various labor laws.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

[Paul]

Another problem involves situations where substances have only recently been banned. If a substance wasn't banned, until say 2005, and you go back to his or her sample from 2002 and find out they had been using it, they can't really be punished for that.
_________________
Paul

"Gaunt is Beautiful" Cassidy's T-shirt

[Angelo Z]

If they invest with them etc. then they can still say they spent it. Or do you mean spending it on banned substances? And investing can cause you to lose the money too, well it depends-investing in stocks or in property?
_________________
My favorite all time race: Hicham El Guerrouj - Prefontaine Classic Mile 2002 http://youtube.com/watch?v=4YykUTHzOL8
¥London 2012 XXX Olympiad¥

[Dan]

You can't force someone to invest their salary.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

[Indeurr]

I know that I am changing the subject, but what do you think about Ms. Williams' comment about the Voo--Doo doll after the US women's relay was DQ'ed in the semifinal?
_________________
http://vincovitanj.tripod.com/Do_not_be_a_victim1/index.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u43o595CARQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x22Alfgv0DY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgcD2akmeJc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB0RcWYMwXU
one hand clapping

[Angelo Z]

[Dan]

Either.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

[Indeurr]

Dan is right; I did not mean you can force anyone -- what I meant was that it could encourage athletes to make wise investments.

It is the same as in the case of professional team sports in the USA (NFL, NBA tec.): youths are urged to stay in school (college or vocational), but if they choose to do otherwise, they can and they do; and this is how it is supposed to be!

I agree as well that any law, sports' lawas included, and most especially the punitive part of it, shall never work backwards: if substance was not on the banned substances list in let say 2006, the athlete cannot be punished for using it during the 2006 season, except for making the results of the re-test at the end of the 8--year period public.
_________________
http://vincovitanj.tripod.com/Do_not_be_a_victim1/index.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u43o595CARQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x22Alfgv0DY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgcD2akmeJc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB0RcWYMwXU
one hand clapping

[Angelo Z]

Think about it; athletes make millions already. That's like saying don't download music because the artist loses money? Athletes have PLENTY to invest. Hicham bought his own custom-made house with a museum. With the 8 year rule, I don't quite agree because I think they should receive their full salary. Simply by not being able to spend it as much after such hard work is traumatizing. It lowers the buying power of an athlete and enjoyment. If you were the athlete, would you personally want to be paid only half the total salary after 8 years? But from the drug use reason point of view then I would agree. You're the IAAF. You pay someone who cheats with illegal substances. You practically lost some money, thus it's not fair. As long as the IAAF pays, then they should have the right to ask for the money back if the athlete is caught. Then again, this will have a negative affect on the athletes that never took an illegal substance. It's one of those things that applies to everyone when instead it should apply separately. Your idea is only in favor for the IAAF, but not for those who know it isn't their case. That's like lowering an athlete's reward to that of a middleclassman. I disagree with that, the idea of being an athlete should be much more rewarding-like a celebrity. If the IAAF pays half the amount, then that lowers the quality of life of some athletes. If the full amount is paid, then it can result in a loss from an athlete caught. Even if the athlete is "banned," that still won't make up for the money lost by the IAAF. The solution? None. The solution is already there. First off, there's always an athlete that cheats, but that group of athletes using banned substances is a minority. The majority are already aware of the laws. As long as the majority don't use a banned substance, then the profit will be greater for the IAAF. Afterall, the IAAF pays athletes, but they make a profit from somewhere right? So why should the IAAF complain just because their profit is slightly lower? Other than that there's not much that can be done to prevent 100% of the athletes from using banned substances. The IAAF has to be flexible, they can't go down only one road.
_________________
My favorite all time race: Hicham El Guerrouj - Prefontaine Classic Mile 2002 http://youtube.com/watch?v=4YykUTHzOL8
¥London 2012 XXX Olympiad¥

[Dan]

I stopped reading after your third sentence... Very few T&F athletes make that kind of money. It isn't a highly lucrative sport, and the duration of average careers is not long enough to accumulate great wealth. Some world class athletes get little more than free shoes from their sponsors.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

[Paul]

Dan, that was funny!!

Angelo Z, Indeurr: Let's say you're a world class sprinter with a four year contract at 250K a year, plus bonuses. A year from now, you get caught. Your endorsers cut you off completely. You can't compete, so there are no appearance fees, either. You probably will have to foreclose on that 750K house you just bought. And the IAAF doesn't have to be involved, monetarily, at all.
_________________
Paul

"Gaunt is Beautiful" Cassidy's T-shirt

[Dan]

Now that's job security!

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

[Angelo Z]

[Dan]

Wait, only the top handful of T&F'ers in the world count as athletes? Wow, that's some tough criteria.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])