I feel like my post was fairly nuanced and addressed both these posts but you cherry pick a line from me and carry on with the hate without responding to the whole. Of course context matters. But do you really believe with 100% certainty that this is all so black-and-white? Anyone accused of violating substance abuse should be tossed out the door in all circumstances? Anyone that is accused of non-violent domestic abuse should be forever vilified? We know very very little of the details and facts of these cases - shouldn't that matter? Or is everything a litmus test that you're either for PEDs and wife-beating or against it and so in order to show our bonifides we need to hurl our hate and scorn at the latest person brought to our attention?
I mean I think paedophiles are some of the lowest of the low, but if an 18-year old is convicted of having consensual sex with a 17-year old because his state has strict legislation that says essentially 'the age of Consent is 18 and therefore this is a adult-child relationship and therefore rape' I'd defend the kids. Would you really take your 'the law is the law' attitude and lump him together with some of the worst animals in society?
Great post.
For me personally, due to personal experiences I have a very low tolerance for anyone that would do anything to harm their spouse or family. This usually results in me being firmly of the position that I would personally disapprove or think negatively towards one who has committed an act like this, providing there was enough evidence to prove it happened. This is my emotive response, which is a personal opinion only, and should only matter to me.
I don't have the same convictions towards the use of PED's, simply because I know they aren't a magic pill that would make me, a fat, bald talentless prat a, MLB quality player. You still need the talent and a lot of work to be put in to achieve the results.
Having said all of the above, if one breaks a rule in relation to the any of above, if someone is proven to a sufficient standard that they have violated the rule, then I expect them to be punished accordingly. I expect the punishment would acknowledge the nuance and context of the incident that you mention and be adjusted to fit "the crime". This is/should be an non-emotive response and should be done objectively.
Once punishment is served then they should be allowed to return unconditionally.
An example I suppose is Michael Vick. I abhor people who abuse animals and to this day I will never forgive what he did. I also had a incredibly heated argument with someone who suggested he should have never been allowed to play again following the completion of his punishment.