Doping and Match Fixing: Has Tennis Crossed the Line?

News of professional tennis player Maria Sharapova failing a drug test at the Australian Open has spread rapidly, especially since tennis is generally considered a more sophisticated sport, and people don’t usually think of tennis players when they think about athletes that are doping (see the video below of the press conference where Sharapova made the announcement). While Sharapova says that the drug she was taking was a medicine given to her for health reasons that was only just recently banned by WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency), she still takes responsibility for taking it after it became a banned substance. Additionally, this situation has brought to light other instances of potential fraud in professional tennis, including doping and fixing matches.

Swisher Executives Charged with Fraud

In 2012, Swisher, a janitorial and cleaning-supply services company, was charged with allegations of financial wrongdoings.  Now, three years later, Michael Kipp (former CFO) and Joanne Viard (former director of external reporting) face charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, wire fraud, securities fraud, and obstruction of justice.

The fraud was carried out largely so that executives could meet earnings targets. While it may not have initially seemed like a big deal to Kipp and Viard to commit the fraud, the investing public was put at risk, and fraud is a crime that is punished. Jill Rose, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, made it clear that whenever there is fraud it will be punished, and in this case the two executives may face up to 30 years in prison.

See this article from The Charlotte Observer for more information.

Should Legal Penalties for Research Misconduct be Similar to Those for Fraud?

Research misconduct (when research is falsified or plagiarized) has historically been dealt with internally, but Richard Smith thinks that should change. In The New Scientist, Smith argues that “Research misconduct degrades trust in science and causes real-world harm. As such, it should be a crime akin to fraud.” False research essentially causes people to believe in something that is incorrect, which can affect their actions—not unlike the way that financial statement fraud can change people’s investment decisions. Smith gives several reasons why research misconduct should be illegal and discusses how it should be treated in our society.

Not even a slap on the wrist...

In the "News of the Weird" for last week, I read the following:

After pleading guilty in Cardiff Crown Court to forging an uncle’s checks worth $65,000, Hayley Price, 42, was fined $8, given a suspended sentence and ordered to do community service. The judge reasoned that Price was broke, having already spent the money.

Can you guess why white collar crime has a high recidivism rate (i.e. a lot of repeat offenders)?