So, recently due to Gatlin's victory (at the age of 35) in the 100m Final at the World Athletics Championships (Why aren't you watching?), a chart came out showing the fastest times ever run by male sprinters and which times were writen off due to the athlete having a suspension for doping. Here: https://www.reddit.com/r/sports/comments/6ryan4/the_fastest_100m_times_ever_names_crossed_over/

This one for individuals, not the times: http://www.track-stats.com/drug-100m-the-fastest-men-and-their-bans/

With the amount of issue Athletics is currently having with doping rumours, even the association with it can cause issues (see Mo Farah and his trainer problems, Mo has proven time and again he's clean yet gets asked about it time and again), with how other sports like Cycling was once riddled with it so much so that no one won Le Tour for a few years, the state sponsors doping of Russia, the question is, should sports governing bodies perminantly ban players caught doping?

Of course it's maybe not as simple as a "you're out" scenario most the time, just look at Gatlin's second ban or Sharapova's very public ban (an only recently banned substance.... she had been taking for years). But maybe a possible solution to help stomp abuse is to ban them outright on a positive with chance of appeal. Dwain Chambers' case is a good one to look into because of how it not only affected him but clean team mates also, who got medals stripped because of his positive test.

Lance Armstrong is innocent. He was set up and I still believe in Lance. I read his books, I bought a Trek Bike and I bought a Livestrong jersey and I still believe in the greatness of Lance. I watched Lance Armstrong epic 7 Tour De France Title wins during 1999 to 2005 and his Gold medal wins. Lance was the man!

honestly it be easier to just let them all dope then waste money on drug testing and trying to fight new methods of doping each year.

Lance Armstrong is not innocent, he knew what he was doing and people who deny this are either stupid or just blindly refuse to accept it due to their bias for the person. Lance Armstrong was even on a program a few weeks ago joking about the whole thing, he was quite funny to be fair and to be watching him talk about it and basically taking the piss out of himself because of what he did. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEfSdPz1WtA

Lance armstrong did take PED's.

Everyone else was as well. If everyone was clean lance would've still won, the times just would've been slower. 

There's no doubt that taking Performance enhancing drugs has a permanent effect on the body. Clean Gatlin after Steroids vs Clean Gatlin before steroids. After steroids will always be better.

I always assume your posts are satire when I read them

FUCK GATLIN

He also admitted to doping himself in an interview. Some of the documentaries out there and his interviews of it all after are rather telling of his character. Arrogant would be a light term for it.

Many people think this, just let them go for it and see what the human body, doped up, can actually do. Health concerns be damned right?

In the case of his ADHD medication for the first years of his life, probably. This is one of the arguments for perminant bans because of long term effects. Sure the substance may have left your body but to get to your level, it's already effected you body in a way to give you an advantage beyond the ban time. The testosterone one was always suspect, specually due to his coach at the time.