A doper’s past should always haunt them

IF we accept that justice is about punishment but also the possibility of rehabilitation, then there can be life after a firsttime doping failure.

With their second chance, though, the doper should also accept that things will never be the same again.

They may return but the nature of their relationship with the public is altered for good. After an athlete has served a ban for a doping violation, they will never be seen in the same way again, and nor should they.

It is part of the cost of exposure as a cheat. Reform may be possible, but their offence will not be forgotten. If it were, then the cost of cheating would not be as forbiddingly high as it must to dissuade others. That is why the decision to parade Maria Sharapova at the launch of the Australian Open was entirely misjudged, to the point of being offensive. Sharapova (left) cheated and has returned, her fame intact.

And it was that fame that prompted the organisers to use her name, gambling on the value of bad publicity ahead of a women’s tournament shorn of its leading players.

The debate on doping has flickered in Ireland this week in the case of Munster’s Gerbrandt Grobler, banned for two years for steroid abuse. He is entitled to a second chance, but his past cannot be forgotten.