Funny Old World

A pro endurance cyclist is found with 0.00001% of a banned substance in his blood and is hounded by the media, is back-dated stripped of titles, and loses his livelihood for 1 to 3 years.

A cricketer performs the most shameful, blatant ball-tampering cheating, and it's all a bit of a joke and he misses a match.

What are we missing here?

Azabache wrote:A pro endurance cyclist is found with 0.00001% of a banned substance in his blood and is hounded by the media, is back-dated stripped of titles, and loses his livelihood for 1 to 3 years.

A cricketer performs the most shameful, blatant ball-tampering cheating, and it's all a bit of a joke and he misses a match.

What are we missing here?

There are a couple of reasons for this.

Drugs in sport is a massive NO NO especially the performance enhancing drugs and it has blighted cycling for decades now. The UCI see handing out long bans to anyone now the only viable option open to them and I think all clean cyclists would support that.

Now in the cricket Steve Smith et al it is true the ICC has given them a mere rap on their knuckles with a one game ban. Too short in my opinion but t the moment that is all it is but that could change. Cricket Australia will also deal out their own form of punishment and that will be more severe I feel - bans of lengthier lengths I feel. Ball-tampering is cheating but it is a form of cheating that can (the hope is) be stifled by short bans whereas drug cheats are almost like drug addicts - they can't go back to competing clean.

That is my take on it.

OK-I get it-cricketers are noble fellows who only stray the once.

Azabache wrote:OK-I get it-cricketers are noble fellows who only stray the once.

Evidently, they are not - or at least not those caught ball-tampering.

I think a better comparison would be between the cricketers and the cycling team the other day using that aerodynamic gel on their legs. Both trying to bend the rules and use non-standard equipment (by tampering with the ball they get an advantage and make the ball non-standard; in the cycling example they’re trying to push the aerodynamics envelope where others do not have the same ‘kit’). The cricket one is obviously at the more serious end of gaining an advantage but I don’t think it’s in the same category as doping.

Are teams still allowed to shine one side of the ball on their trousers to get a bit more swing? If so, going further and tampering with it more is just a more serious version of that isn’t it? Marginal gains!

The cyclists will be more culpable because the media-lead by our noble BBC-have the knives out for the sport.