If you think a player taking recreational drugs in the off-season is "affecting the integrity of the game" presumably you'd also be in favour of rubbing out any player who got pissed, ever?
I mean, be serious. You can be as anti-drugs as you want (I wouldn't agree, personally, but if you want to argue that recreational drug taking should result in more serious bans that's fine). Simona may have been actually throwing matches, and "integrity of the game" literally means "can fans trust that they're watching a fair contest". If you genuinely believe you can't trust the product in front of you because one of the players took drugs three months previously I have to say you're being a bit precious.
Why would somebody who takes a "recreational" (read drug of addiction) drug in the off season not use it during the season? The scourge of drugs in sport certainly makes this fan wonder if he can trust that he is watching a fair contest. Can a player who takes "recreational" drugs train and play at the same level as one who is not affected? I doubt it.
Illegal bookmakers are always on the lookout for ways to alter the outcomes of contests in all sports and I don't believe that it's inconceivable that they could make drugs available to certain players as a trade off for doing their bidding, aside from the effect that those drugs may have on performance generally. When players associate with criminals to buy their drugs, as they must, the door is opened to all manner of corruption, including illegal betting so, no, I don't think I'm drawing a particularly long bow here.
I won't address your comment about alcohol in any depth, except to say that it astounds me that professional athletes drink heavily whilst they are training and playing and I would like to see clubs ban alcohol but again the almighty advertising dollar would preclude this from happening. Your extension of my post to presume that I'd like to see any player "who got pissed, ever" is putting words in my mouth and I'm realistic enough to know that this is impossible but "recreational" drugs, as you put it is a horse of a different colour.
"Be serious", I am quite serious but this is a debate that will have no conclusion until the authorities get serious about this.
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm asking you a reasonable question. If your issue with recreational drugs is that by (presumably negatively) affecting players' performance they damage fans' ability to trust that they are watching a legitimate contest (ie: the integrity of the game) you have no reason not to think the same about alcohol use/abuse. Or eating too much fast food, frankly.
If your issue with recreational drugs is something else (legality or the like) you're entitled to think that, but it's nothing to do with the integrity of the game.
I'd like to assume that all the players I'm watching are treating their bodies in such a way that they're in as good a physical state to perform as they can be. But even if some of them are recovering from drug use or hungover on the field it's categorically not the same kind of thing as if one of them is, effectively, throwing the game for money.
I think that I've made what I think as clear as I can and I don't want to argue the point back and forth. Let me try to distill it down to as few words as possible.
What you call recreational drugs, I call drugs of addiction and addicts don't confine their drug taking to a certain time of the year.
I think that drugs of addiction should be decriminalised but at the moment they are illegal. Anybody who buys illegal drugs is associating with criminals. Some criminals, such as illegal bookmakers, would see an opportunity to use a player's drug taking (free drugs, blackmail etc) to make money by manipulating the way that a game is played. I don't know whether or not this has happened but I believe it is possible.
Leaving aside criminality, players who drink heavily (probably the majority), especially during the season, are letting down the fans who partly pay them via their membership money. I feel the same about players who take drugs or don't have an optimum (no, not the dog food!) diet during the season or during training, eg off season. Can an individual game be said to have integrity if players who are being paid to perform at their best, do things which ensure that they can't? Drugs of addiction and alcohol lower performance while other drugs enhance performance. Either way it can affect the outcome of games and players who knowingly do that, in my view, lack integrity and therefore, affect the integrity of the game.
Having said all that, I do realise that the game is populated by flawed creatures known as human beings and change, in the way that I would want, is most probably many years away if ever. Somebody mentioned Andrew Johns who has been made an "immortal" (even though he's still going to die!) after admitting to regular drug use. Who knows what he would have been without drugs but apart from that, what does this award say about the state of the game? To me it says that it lacks integrity. I imagine that parents out there would be loath to allow their kids into such a culture. I certainly wouldn't like to see my grandkids involved.
To sum up, illegal drugs all involve criminality at some level and this can open the door to corrupt practices. Legal drugs such as alcohol do not open the door to corruption as such but heavy use can affect results and those players lack integrity. 2041, we clearly disagree but I respect your opinion as, I hope, you do mine. My original post lacked detail but I hope that I've made my position clearer.
