Should Andre Agassi be served with a retrospective ban?
There are several sports stars who, having retired, admit wrong-doings during their careers. Agassi's autobiography is the latest; recently Matt Le Tissier admitted cheating - match-fixing - in his book.
Agassi now admits taking crytal meth. Then, having failed a drugs test, lying to the ATP. The Association of Tennis Professionals is, significantly, the players' body not, as in football (e.g. The Premier League, the players' employers' body).
So should he be served with retrospective punishments? And his record over that period being expunged from the books? And even his earnings being returned?
0
Comments
They tried to fix a bet on first throw in. Wrong but not the same thing.
Why is crystal meth going to make your performance worse? Firstly it's an amphetamine or 'upper' and secondly it's regarded as a stronger psychostimulant than say 'normal' Speed or Coke. It releases seratonin and dopamine, both of which are seen to help increase motor co-ordination and seratonin helps to engender a dominant psychology in a person. Basically it increases energy levels and also an agressive never say-die psychology. Why do you think tank crews in WWII were popping it in little sweeties?
However there are obviously multiple downsides to it. But if you were to use it in a controlled way before a match or during a match there could be massive benefits for the user. Of course like all drugs, and also taking them for improved performance in sports, users have varying responses to them and they're many people out there who'd struggle to keep it together with the intensity of their reaction to meth. Here's what Agassi said of it from a social viewpoint:
"Then comes a tidal wave of euphoria that sweeps away every negative thought in my head. I've never felt so alive, so hopeful - and I've never felt such energy."
What to be done? Nothing. Just proves time and time again that sporting bodies can not govern themselves and that independent bodies such as Wada and CAS should enforce.
Match fixing can be defined as occurring when a match is played to a completely or partially pre-determined result, violating the rules of the game and often the law. Le Tissier cheated and fixed - or, more accurately, tried to fix - a pre-determined part of a match. His cheating was compounded by the fact he failed to send the ball out of play and ended up running round trying to get hold of the ball to boot it off.
Everyone who watched - paid to watch - that game was cheated. The fans and TV viewers were entitled to believe they would be watching 22 players competing to win. In fact, the star player was competing to cheat and fix a bet.
I'm not defending Le Tissier as what he did was wrong but it was not an attempt to fix the "result" of the game merely the time of the first throw.
The remainder of the game, after the first few seconds, was, to the best of our knowledge, was played out in the normal competitive way and had no impact on the result.
I believe Crystal Meth would almost certainly make your performance worse. Back in my raving days i dabbled in several class A's (something im not proud of) and although they release chemicals similiar to those that would apparently enhanse performance, psychostimulants i believe you mentioned, they in no way would they make me better at playing sport. Granted, they made me seem more aware but they certailny didnt make me wanna go and play 5 sets! I understand that these things have science behind them, but i dont think Agassi would have ever been a better player on meth, just like E's didnt make me Eric Cantona.
Mmmm, arguable. It probably did not have an effect on the rest of the match, but the fact remains that by taking an action outside the usual rules / run of the game, the result could possibly have been impacted ... in this case, it wasn't, but another time, who knows?
That's an oppinion from the abuse of drugs! When I first partook in Class A's, before inevitably going past my bodies comfortable limits, I can quite comfortably say that they did improve my senses and reactions. Shortly after when I took them in excess for my body/mind I was more of a babbling prat on uppers. It isn't what happens to you when you take these things excessively, as after-all there's little benefit in taking too much EPO or Steroids just serious medical concerns, it is what positive effects you can have with the right dosage. Taking uppers in a controlled ammount significantly improves energy & performance, especially during long drawn out games. Some people take co-cortesoids and it'll significantly reduce their performance, but if a substance can be used for improved performance that is still an offense whether taken socially or for professional reasons.
You do realise Lucozade tablets arent class A's :-)
Le Tissier admitted that he cheated in one game. Who knows how many other times he did so? And that is the point: we will never know how many other games were "fixed". How many times he mis-hit a free-kick because he was down for only "x" shots on target that week. Or how many other times he missed an open goal because he had a few quid on the scoreline.
Was Hansie Cronje a cheat for offering to pay two of his players (Hershelle Gibbs and Henry Williams) to under-perform? Yes, of course he was. Were the players cheats for agreeing to the bribe? Yes of course they were - even though Gibbs failed, by scoring more than he agreed to and Williams failed by being injured and therefore not able to concede sufficient runs. Were Dennis Lillee and Rodney Marsh cheats for placing mug punts on England to beat Australia in the 1981 Headingley Test? Of course - even thtough their individual performances didn't cause Australia's defeat.
Fleecing some bookies is cheating. Under-performing is cheating. And not playing to your full capability for material gain is cheating. Le Tissier is as bad as any of them.
So within his sport, taking drugs should be ok? Then what should be done about him lying about it?
You can't base an argument on what Le Tiss MIGHT have done in other games or what other cheats have done.
We can only argue over what he has admitted doing as there is no other evidence of wrong doing and Le Tiss said that he never tried anything like it again.
Being pregnant or died are binary, wrong doing is not.
We have a system that allows for degrees of wrong doing both in our criminal justice system (shorter/longer sentences) and in football (yellow card/red card/ban). The alternative is that any trip or foul is treat the same as drug taking or bribing a ref.
So yes, he was wrong IMHO and fleecing bookies is wrong but it is not match fixing or bribing other players.
It was not a major issue that undermined the validity of that game unlike the other examples you gave and so was a minor not a major offence.
I don't think anyway has said that he wasn't wrong or that what he did was OK.
I was arguing that is was far less serious than the other cases cited.
In the same way I think driving over the speed limit is wrong (and the law agrees with me) but I, and the law, can distinguish between doing 80mph on a 70mph motorway and doing 80mph in a 30mph built up area.
Le Tissier admitted that he cheated in one game. Who knows how many other times he did so? And that is the point: we will never know how many other games were "fixed". How many times he mis-hit a free-kick because he was down for only "x" shots on target that week. Or how many other times he missed an open goal because he had a few quid on the scoreline.
Was Hansie Cronje a cheat for offering to pay two of his players (Hershelle Gibbs and Henry Williams) to under-perform? Yes, of course he was. Were the players cheats for agreeing to the bribe? Yes of course they were - even though Gibbs failed, by scoring more than he agreed to and Williams failed by being injured and therefore not able to concede sufficient runs. Were Dennis Lillee and Rodney Marsh cheats for placing mug punts on England to beat Australia in the 1981 Headingley Test? Of course - even thtough their individual performances didn't cause Australia's defeat.
Fleecing some bookies is cheating. Under-performing is cheating. And not playing to your full capability for material gain is cheating. Le Tissier is as bad as any of them.[/quote]
Chizz, calling Lillee and Marsh "cheats" for putting ten quid on England at 500-1 for a bit of a lark is just a tad over the top.
I have had the good fortune to meet both gentlemen concerned and I can quite assure you that calling either of them a cheat would likely result in you getting very well acquainted with the local A&E.
All that happened was that when Boycott was dismissed in the second innings everyone thought England's last chance had gone and so for a publicity stunt Ladbrokes on-ground betting tent put England at 500-1 to win the match.
At the time England were 133-6 and still over 100 runs away from even making Australia return to the crease and when Bob Taylor was out shortly after to make it 135-7 Lillee and Marsh could not resist the bet just for the hell of it.
They did not even give it a second thought until England's Botham inspired rearguard swung the game dramatically back in the balance.
Lillee actually made 17 in a partnership of 35 for the 9th wicket in the Aussie 2nd innings, taking them to within 18 runs of victory before he was brilliantly caught by Gatting at mid-on.
Marsh says that when the coach driver came into the dressing room with their winnings that he was almost physically ill.
To put these two legends of the game, and absolute gentlemen to boot, in the same vein as Cronje et al is quite simply not on.