Originally Posted by turtleback
Yeah. And why even have a trial after someone confesses to something.
A funny little thing called Due Process, which even private organizations have to afford its members or employees before depriving them of their livelihood. And just how did you determine that the appropriate punishment for his offense is suspension or, as you more radically called for, retroactive suspension. Are you privy to the Tour's schedule of punishments for various offenses? Because if you are I am sure the golf news reporters would pay you big bucks for a copy of that. How do you know the Tour does not have a suspended sentence policy for first time offenses? And am pretty sure that the tour, unlike you, differentiates between a violation of the Rules of Golf, and a violation of Tour policy. They are not the same and should not and aren't treated the same.
I'm with you, to some extent.
I don't necessarily think a positive test is necessary when a guy confesses. And I don't think a big trial is needed, either. I think a brief investigation into his confession is all that's needed.
Keep in mind, people confess for a myriad of reasons. Not all confessions are true. Wasn't that long ago that the stories were coming out about how rampant, racial prejudice led some bad cops (mostly in small towns in the south, from what I can recall) to coerce suspects to confess to crimes they didn't commit by threatening their or their families' lives.
Hollywood stars (and their agents) have also been known to drum up and leak "scandals" in order to make them appear relevant again. Sometimes people confess simply to cover for someone else.
I'm not saying either of these is what happened in Vijay's case, but because confessions aren't always truth, someone (PGA disciplinary board?) needs to sit down with Vijay on-the-record and figure out why he said what he said, whether or not he did what he said, and how many events it might have affected (if any). If he was lying for some stupid reason, he should be dealt with the same way anyone is dealt with who commits offenses "detrimental to the sport". If he admits to the board he used a banned substance, then he should be dealt with the same way any other doper would be dealt with.
I don't buy Vijay's claim that he used deer antler spray but he didn't know it had a banned substance in it. Here's the problem with that logic. The dude used a chemical/substance which he thought would aid him in some way. Pro athletes (and amateur, for that matter) don't seem to be getting the message. Look, people...sports are about people competing on equal ground. If you're putting something in or on your body for the sole purpose of improving your performance, whether it's banned or not, you are guilty of using a performance-enhancing product.
Is that really so difficult for these idiots to understand? How the HELL can someone use anything like that and still have any shred of self-respect? I won't apologize to the guys on here who have used them, either, because we all do stupid things from time to time and I'll just assume that you weren't thinking clearly when you did it. I've made some stupid mistakes in my life, too. I'm thankful I've never traded my dignity for any opportunity to "win" at anything, whether it's in a job or anything else. I hope I never get to such a low point in my life that I'm tempted to. But I guess that's why I'll never get the thought process that makes a guy cheat (and whether or not Vijay knew it had a "banned substance" in it, he surely must have realized it was cheating, by definition).