Tyson Gay gets a year...kind of

Last July, Tyson Gay and a handful of other sprinters tested positive PEDs in what some called a watershed day for the sport of athletics (it wasn't).  Gay got popped for testosterone, HGH, and "two other banned substances" that he acquired from an anti-aging specialist.  At the time of his ban, he said, "I don't have a sabotage story....  I basically put my trust in someone and was let down."  Gay was originally sentenced to a two year ban from the sport under IAAF doping code at the time (the IAAF last summer was pushing to move to four year bans but it doesn't appear as though that change was made).

I would also like to point out that Gay was enrolled in the USADA's "My Victory.  I compete clean" program.  Best I can tell, all this means is that he promised not to take PEDs.  In fact, anyone can sign up for its successor program TrueSport here.  I'm not really sure what signing up buys you or any other athlete.  Somewhat related, Asafa Powell was enrolled extra drug testing to prove has cleanliness before his positive test, which is a different display of cojones to sign up for a legit anti-doping program while you're on the juice.  In the summer of 2011 I called into The Big Show on WEEI and said that if I were a doper and knew I wasn't going to get caught, I'd do the same thing to show the world that I was clean.  I wouldn't say I was torn apart for that view, but the hosts didn't exactly follow my logic.  My point is, if an athlete is 95% certain he isn't going to get busted, it is beneficial to enroll in such a program to buy public support.

In the past week, Gay's ban was reduced to one year because he played nice with the USADA in its investigation of his offenses.  In exchange for passing along information about potential other dopers, Gay's suspension was reduced under WADA code 10.5.3.  Not only has his punishment been reduced, but the penalty began last June when he originally failed the drug test.  It's been determined that he started serving time before his official penalty was announced and he is thus being rewarded.

So what's this all mean?  Gay can start competing again right when the European circuit gets going this June.  He got a slap on the wrist and, in essence, was told to take a 10 month break from competition for training.  He has elected to return some prize money and his silver medal from the 4x100m at the 2012 Olympics, but he can win the money right back.  Who wouldn't be interested in seeing what Gay can do in his first couple of meets back from suspension when he's supposedly clean?  The appearance fees he'll command will be as high as ever.  Additionally, I'd guess Gay was dropped by some sponsors, but those will come back.  He's marketable, and America loves a redemption story.

I have two criticisms of how this case has been handled (aside from the reduction in penalty): the first is that the IAAF needs four year bans.  Gay was less than a month away from turning 31 when he got banned.  Slap a four year ban on and he's almost 35 when he comes back.  His career would be over, as should be the case for cheaters.  He could, feasibly, come back a month away from 33 and still be competitive at the elite level.  This argument is nothing new to anyone who's been reading my posts.

The second, more grave, criticism I have is the precedent WADA is setting here.  You can dope, get caught, snitch, and get a greatly reduced penalty.  Ready for what's worse?  Sean Ingle of the Guardian writes: "Under Wada's new code from January 2015, athletes who cheat could get a full amnesty and complete anonymity in exchange for information – and keep their prize money too."

WHAT.

WHAT.

WHAT.

LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT: Someone can drug himself to the gills, get caught, rat out his easily replaceable supplier that he probably didn't care about in the first place, and get off scot-free?  Excuse me?  This isn't counterterrorism; this is anti-doping.  Who defines what sufficient information is to be granted amnesty and anonymity?  How far does a nice chunk of change from a sponsor go for reducing that minimum?

TAKE IT ALL

If I were an elite, I'd see this as a green light to load up on everything in the pharmacy, walk over to vet's office, and load up on everything in there.  I'll run super fast and roll in the cash.  Maybe I piss hot, maybe I don't.  If I do, I rat out my doctor, and no one will ever know about my positive.  I keep my sponsors, I keep my prize money, I keep my medals, I keep my reputation, I keep everything.  

This is absurd.  We all know the dopers are ahead of the testers, so if someone's testing positive and is willing to talk, how much new information are we going to get?  If they had some super secret undetectable drug, wouldn't they have taken it so as to not get popped?  Sure, we could see marginal increases in information, but nothing groundbreaking.  But you know what would be groundbreaking?  Banning a star for four years.  Ruin their career and their reputation.  Destroy their livelihood.  Strike the fear of god into the athletes.  It's the only way we're getting a clean sport.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After reading this post, one of my friends asked me if I thought this new rule was legislated to protect the sport of track from a potentially dirty Usain Bolt.  Given that it is a WADA rule and not an IAAF rule, I don't think it was written with Bolt specifically in mind.  It could, however, incidentally protect NBC's chosen Olympic heartthrob come 2016.