Pete S wrote:Well, I was more alluding to the way he has knuckled down and got on with hard training in an attempt to restart his tattered career and image which, for my money, is exactly what he's done.
What exactly is he supposed to do?
The press will always make a big deal of him - that's their prerogative - nothing he can do about that now except what he is doing, keep on working, keep his head down, let his sprinting do the talking.
He's doing it now but but that's pretty recent behaviour. The press wrote about him because he gave them plenty of stuff off the track to write about. If he's just shut up and let his sprinting do the talking then at least they would have been writing about athletics instead of drugs, drugs and more drugs.
Pete S wrote:Provocative interviews? I can remember a few poorly chosen phrases but he's an athlete not a PR guru.
I can't remember his exact words but the general gist was that you needed to be on drugs in order to win an Olympic medal. Now I don't for one minute doubt that the majority of his competitors were indeed but you don't say so in an interview with the BBC, especially if you're not prepared to back that up with evidence (He obviously knows more than he's ever revealed)
You're right he's not a PR guru so if you are going to do interviews when you know the whole sport is listening to every word then either hire one or shut the f*ck up!!!
Pete S wrote:Challenging the BOA rule? People go to court all the time to challenge rulings. It's a good job they do. We are even allowed to question the Bible in this country so the BOA should not be exempt.
Just because he's allowed to do it, it doesn't mean he should. He knew the consequences when he took the drugs so to then challenge the rules afterwards is just shameless. It's especially egregious because once again it draws all the attention onto athletics and drugs, further linking the two in the public perception of the sport.
Pete S wrote:Advice from Victor Conte - again ill-advised but understandable. I don't know what advice he sought?
It's not 'understandable'??? At least not if you are truly repentent and want to be successfully reintergrated into the team, staying in contact with the mastermind of the greatest drug acandal in the sports history is not the way forward.And once again more drug induced headlines.
Pete S wrote:I may be guilty of letting the mists of time affect my sentiments towards the guy, however.
I think you are
Pete S wrote:How do you feel about other countries having more lenient policies towards drug offenders? Would you prefer that ANY athlete caught taking PED from ANY country should be banned from the Olympics? That's fair enough and was one of the two options I proposed.
Of couse any athlete from any country should be banned from the Olympics (And all IAAF events as well) but if other countries are not willing to do that I don't think it means the UK should dilute their stance. We should be proud that we take subject seriously rather than changing the rule just because others don't follow suit.
Pete S wrote:If that is your choice that's fine but how confident are you that the tests are fair? Does missing a test or appointment window mean that, as you have technically committed a drugs related offence, you will be banned for life as surely as you would if you had actually tested positive? You know where I'm going with that...!
I know exactly where you are going with this. In general missing a test does not come close to the seriousness of failing a test but avoiding
should be treated in the same way where it can be proved. In the case that you're talking about (And I really not going down that route today) the athlete whilst stupid was clearly not avoiding anything as you can't avoid something you don't know is going to happen. They were more tha adequately punished and in any other country wouldn't have been punisshed at all. Whilst the system that caused the problem in the first place was a disaster the handling of the issue was very satisfactory in my opinion.
Pete S wrote:Some people will always want to see DC "hung out to dry".
I've never suggested that he should be hung out to dry just take responsibilty for his own actions and suffer the consequences without complaining.
Pete S wrote:I have more compassion than that and believe the guy deserves a second chance..
He's got a 2nd chance. He's in the British team, competing at champs and making a living but that doesn't mean he deserves any more than the bare minimum from the sport and team he disgraced. I have no problem with him being in the team and wissh him well. I just don't ssupport him anymore and never will. He's got every right to do what he's able to do right now and should be grateful for it rather than wanting more.
My general complaints are two fold.
1 - If you are going to break the rules then don't complain when you get caught.
2 - If you want to be fully accepted back, stop dragging the sport through the mud.
Just s someone above said there are plenty of other professions that had you broke the rules in the way Dwain did you would never be allowed to take part in again. He's lucky that to have a 2nd chance at all.