The issue of whether Shane Warne deserved a punishment for taking a diuretic has been widely debated in our community recently. It is an important issue because it concerns fundamental moral and social questions about the topic surrounding the controversy, that is, drugs in sport. There are a variety of views on the politics behind drug use in sport, and many arguments put forward about the matter of Shane's punishment for using an illegal substance. The question on everyone's mind is, did Shane deserve a punishment? Although there are a number of opinions on the matter, there is only one logical thesis; Shane Warne's punishment for performing a prohibited act was a suitable and fair adjudication.
             Worldwide the public community brand sports persons who seek to improve their abilities illegally, as cheats. These cheats who partake in the practice of using illegal substances are invariably penalized severely. This should be no different for Shane. He tested positive for diuretics; a drug used by athletes to mask performance-enhancing substances. The moment Shane put a banned substance in his mouth, the moment he became a drug cheat, and, consequently had to be punished for his actions. The one-year ban wasn't just mandatory to discipline Shane, but also to protect the future from similar incidences occurring.
             'But...Warnie did it!' would be the plea to absolution if Shane had of got off unscathed. It would transform the sporting world into a diuretic haven. Athletes would be free to use illegal performance-enhancing substances with the luxury of knowing that the utilized diuretic will be their failsafe. The sporting world as we know it today would spawn into a corrupt arbitrary environment, eliminating any chance of a competitive bout. The one-year ban was adept to maintain the prospect in athlete's minds that if they participate in using a diuretic there will be serious repercussions. At the sa
             ...