Punishment & redemption: consistency in sanctions for doping & match-fixing
It has always seemed to me that doping is viewed as far more heinous than match-fixing by stakeholders in sport, these being the two principal integrity offences in sport. Yet if you look at the general trend for the sanctions metered out for the two, especially for first time offenders, those for match-fixing are far more severe. Is this fair? Does it strike a consistent balance between punishing offenders and the belief that they can redeem themselves through rehabilitation and return to their sport?
To continue reading or watching login or register here
Already a member? Sign in
Get access to all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport including articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts. Find out more here.
Related Articles
- Match Fixing - The Biggest Threat to Sport in The 21st Century? - Part 1
- Match Fixing - Why Do People Involved in Sport Agree to Match Fix? - Part 2
- Match Fixing – Action Needs To Be Taken – Part 3
- CAS upholds lifetime ban on Serbian tennis player
- The Armstrong case - UCI's response
- Random thoughts on Lance
- National Court for Sports Arbitration issued its final ruling on Antonio Conte's position
- Six-month sporting ban for boxer Kylie Fulmer for testing positive for Methylhexaneamine
- An Athlete’s perspective on match fixing: what sports’ governing bodies should learn from Shuttlegate
Written by
Kevin Carpenter
Kevin is a advisor and member of the editorial board for LawInSport, having previously acted as editor. In his day-to-day work he has two roles: as the Principal for his own consultancy business Captivate Legal & Sports Solutions, and Special Counsel for Sports Integrity at leading global sports technology and data company Genius Sports.
Sports Law Networking Evening - Glasgow