Athletics Weekly

Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Drug-related news and topics. Note - this is not a place to make idle speculations.
Forum rules
Note - this is not a place to make idle speculations. Anyone doing so will face a warning and/or a ban.

Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby Geoff » Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:14 pm

The BBC are reporting that Dwayne Chambers has said he hasn't ruled out a legal challenge against his Olympic ban. They also report that CVC believes he should be given a second chance and should not have been punished differently to other athletes.

Many people agree that if he challenges the BOA he could win and only lost last time because it was judged to be too late. He's been training with UKA as well as being part of GB teams so will we see him in the relay squad? Any action he brings must, in my opinion, be done this year in order to avoid another media circus leading up to London 2012. Last time Colin Moynihan used his own money to pay for the BOA's legal costs and in the end Chambers, I believe, agreed not to appeal so what would happen if he did challenge them? The BOA have little money, Chambers' PED use was 9 years or so ago and WADA have different rules so would it actually get to court?

Personally, I believe he should be given a second chance although what he did, and many others, has seriously damaged the sport. Get this over with as soon as possible and then we can concentrate on preparing for the Olympics without the media coverage being too much on Chambers.
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby Geoff » Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:19 pm

This is the BBC article just put on their website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/9413676.stm

Extracts include:

'UK Athletics (UKA) head coach Charles van Commennee has hinted he would back a fresh legal bid by drugs cheat Dwayne Chambers to overturn his Olympic ban.'

'The BOA would still have the final say in Olympic selection, but the suggestion that UKA would back implicitly or explicitly any renewed challenge to the ban by Chambers in the run-up to London 2012 would seem to increase its chances of success.'
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby Kermit » Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:46 pm

The dark clouds are looming ever closer to the heads of The BOA. The judge who heard the case, WADA, UKAD and now CVC are now standing in he corner of the most consistent British sprinter of the past 5 years. I wonder how those who sit above CVC and their bed fellows Fast Track think of this? Their head coach, who has brought much success, standing shoulder to shoulder with the man they despise, the man they have managed to blacklist from any big Euro meet.

No point in watching the BEEB this weekend for Euro Indoor coverage, instead of talking about "silky smooth" it will be all about DC and the BOA.
Kermit
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby flashcoach » Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:26 am

The very thought that this is even being discussed wreaks of desperation by CVC and UKA the mans a cheat and must not be allowed into the Olympics.
flashcoach
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:49 pm

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby Kermit » Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:38 am

Get it right Flash he is a reformed cheat. And whether we like it or not the by-law is very weak.
Kermit
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby Flumpy » Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:50 am

flashcoach wrote:The very thought that this is even being discussed wreaks of desperation by CVC and UKA the mans a cheat and must not be allowed into the Olympics.


AMEN!!!!

He knew the consequences when he decided to cheat. You can't break the rules and then complain afterwards that you don't like them. If he wanted to compete at the Olympics he shouldn't have taken drugs.

End of.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 1400
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:11 pm

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby merito » Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:14 am

I get it that the drug cheat would enhance hopes for the relay team and it would be fine and dandy to get the country standing proud with another medal. However, what message is this sending to our kids?
Cheat and you can still get back in? The man had full knowledge of what he was doing, the consequences and the message he sent out to the kids.
He does nothing to enhance the moral status of sport, get rid of him!

I understand there is a lot of passion on this topic. This is only my opinion and I do not expect to move the world or change minds.
merito
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 4:45 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby srb » Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:06 pm

If he is allowed to compete, then we might as well tear up the anti-drugs commitment and let anyone compete. All those who have had their medals taken away could, on that scenario, surely instigate a claim to recover them.
srb
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:27 pm
Location: Northants

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby flashcoach » Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:27 pm

We only have his word that he a reformed cheat kermit, the word of a cheat!

I am with srb and merito on this one, the Olympics have to be protected and Chamber knew the penalty before hwe commited his crime. How would the athletes who he stole medals cash and podium glory off feel about this?

It all sounds like an act of desperation in as much the same way the imports of overseas passport holders are, CVC and UKA are up to there necks in it, they must not be allowed to denigrate British athletics any further than they already have. This act of desperation would open the doors to the druggies even wider, it would open the door for Myerscough and others as well.

If this is the best CVC can do then pack him back off home, the image of British athletics is far more important than those running it.
flashcoach
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:49 pm

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby sub12man » Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:44 pm

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

CVC views are immaterial its a BOA rule which incidentaly the IOC has now (part) adopted. If anything his grounds for appealing have diminished not increased.

Just because Dwain is being a nice guy does not mean he gets to wipe the slate clean. Bank managers who steal should not expect to be bank managers ever again. Teachers who have sex with pupils should not expect to be teachers ever again. British Athletes who take drugs should not expect to run in the Olympics ever again.

I wish him well in whatever he does away from athletics but will never accept him (or any other convicted drug users)back in athletics.
sub12man
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:40 am

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby Kermit » Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:03 pm

flashcoach wrote:We only have his word that he a reformed cheat kermit, the word of a cheat!

I am with srb and merito on this one, the Olympics have to be protected and Chamber knew the penalty before hwe commited his crime. How would the athletes who he stole medals cash and podium glory off feel about this?

It all sounds like an act of desperation in as much the same way the imports of overseas passport holders are, CVC and UKA are up to there necks in it, they must not be allowed to denigrate British athletics any further than they already have. This act of desperation would open the doors to the druggies even wider, it would open the door for Myerscough and others as well.

If this is the best CVC can do then pack him back off home, the image of British athletics is far more important than those running it.


The Olympics have to be protected ..... The Olympics allow those who have served their suspension to compete again unless they have been banned in the current Olympic cycle. Therefore in the eyes of the IOC, IAAF and the law he should be eligible. And yes it would open the door to Myerscough as well as allowing some of our selected athletes to have access to their coach Linford Christie within the holding camp.
Kermit
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby Pete S » Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:09 pm

The guy has behaved impeccably since his fall from grace - I am in awe of how he has conducted himself.

However..there are really only two possible "fair" outcomes:

1. The ENTIRE Olympic movement adopts the policy that, having been caught, you may never ever compete in an Olympics again.

or

2. The ENTIRE Olympic movement adopts the policy that, having been caught, you must be banned from competing in the current Olympic cycle only.

The BOA is concerned, quite understandably, with preserving the image of the games and of the BOA. That's fair enough, but it's in danger of becoming a middle class moral crusade. Acting alone and taking the stance that it has, was ill advised when other countries took a more lax approach. I expect more from an organisation of the stature of the BOA.

The Olympic movement must speak with one voice - to do otherwise does much damage to the "brand".

We all like to take the moral high ground but who can honestly say that if something we wanted so desperately could be ours just by breaking a few rules here and there, we wouldn't do it? Especially if others are getting away with it...

Athletes have frequently been a magnet for dubious and shady characters, eager to use them to make money - it will always happen. Add to this the fact that athletes are often not the sharpest tools in the box, often easily led astray because sport offers them the only realistic opportunity to make something of their lives and it's the perfect storm.

If other countries continue to allow former drug cheats in their teams then DC has every right to to feel hard done by.

Incidentally - I don't have the stats to my fingertips but does anyone know if he's now running faster than when he was taking drugs?
Pete S
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 11:28 am

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby Flumpy » Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:40 pm

Pete S wrote:The guy has behaved impeccably since his fall from grace - I am in awe of how he has conducted himself.



No he hasn't. He behaved appallingly for the first few years. Giving provocative interviews, releasing inflamatory autobiographies, challenging the BOA rule, taking advice from Victor Conte etc. There was about 4 major championships in a row where all of the press was about him and his new attentions seeking enterprise rather than athletes who actually deserved the attention.

Yes in the last couple of years he's behaved very well and I've no doubt he's a very nice guy but that does not mean we should forget his past misdemeanors.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 1400
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:11 pm

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby Pete S » Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:44 pm

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.

Your points:

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.

Provocative interviews? I can remember a few poorly chosen phrases but he's an athlete not a PR guru.

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.

Advice from Victor Conte - again ill-advised but understandable. I don't know what advice he sought?

I may be guilty of letting the mists of time affect my sentiments towards the guy, however..

It's very easy to be highly polarised in the drugs in sport debate, I started off a little that way, but as my experience of the subject grew I discovered there is a lot more to it than meets the eye.

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.

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...!

In my opinion, the powers that be have opened themselves up to challenge because they have been "woolly" in their judgements and edicts.

Some people will always want to see DC "hung out to dry".

I have more compassion than that and believe the guy deserves a second chance..
Pete S
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 11:28 am

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby usedtoit33 » Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:04 pm

Fine, then he should do it this season and get it over with and not do the same as last time and maximise publicity for his book.
usedtoit33
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 9:44 am
Location: Liverpool

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby MBChristie » Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:37 pm

Pete S wrote:1. The ENTIRE Olympic movement adopts the policy that, having been caught, you may never ever compete in an Olympics again.


This currently applies to anyone banned after July 2008. LaShawn Merritt is one of those falling foul of this rule. How can anyone justify lifting Dwain's ban, while barring an Olympic Champion.
MBChristie
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:59 pm
Location: Morayshire

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby Flumpy » Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:42 pm

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.

Your points:

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 :D

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.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 1400
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:11 pm

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby Flumpy » Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:46 pm

MBChristie wrote:
Pete S wrote:1. The ENTIRE Olympic movement adopts the policy that, having been caught, you may never ever compete in an Olympics again.


This currently applies to anyone banned after July 2008. LaShawn Merritt is one of those falling foul of this rule. How can anyone justify lifting Dwain's ban, while barring an Olympic Champion.


Your post doesn't make any sense. It's 2 different rules by different organisations. They have nothing to do with one another and why should being an Olympic champion make any difference???
Flumpy
 
Posts: 1400
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:11 pm

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby MBChristie » Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:55 pm

Flumpy wrote:
MBChristie wrote:
Pete S wrote:1. The ENTIRE Olympic movement adopts the policy that, having been caught, you may never ever compete in an Olympics again.


This currently applies to anyone banned after July 2008. LaShawn Merritt is one of those falling foul of this rule. How can anyone justify lifting Dwain's ban, while barring an Olympic Champion.


Your post doesn't make any sense. It's 2 different rules by different organisations. They have nothing to do with one another and why should being an Olympic champion make any difference???


No it shouldn't make any difference, but it's the perception of the situation that will bewilder the public.
MBChristie
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:59 pm
Location: Morayshire

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby Flumpy » Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:14 pm

Oh who cares what the public thing. What do they know :D
Flumpy
 
Posts: 1400
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:11 pm

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby Pete S » Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:19 pm

Flumpy/MBChristie : 2008 regulations?

Yes - I've just had a trawl through the internet and can't find this.

Where is it? The doping sanctions from Beijing that I found seem woolier than ever in relation to individual National bodies and the subsequent sanctions they MAY impose..

Flumpy - I fully understand your reasoning, you've explained yourself very eloquently.

I suppose it comes down to some fairly basic human instinct that I had when this whole story played out before Beijing - and that is that something just didn't "feel right" about it.

At that time the BOA went after DC with something approaching messianic zeal. At that games - and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong - a number of competitors had received previous bans for PED and yet they were allowed to compete for their respective countries whilst DC wasn't. It didn't seem fair - it wasn't fair.

Anyway, time has moved on and we'll have to agree to disagree I think.

Thanks for the input - it makes a change from my usual experience of this forum where nobody seems interested enough to reply! Perhaps that's because I'm usually posting about the future of coaching and in that particular arena, apathy reigns supreme!
Pete S
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 11:28 am

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby MBChristie » Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:28 pm

Pete S wrote:Flumpy/MBChristie : 2008 regulations?

Yes - I've just had a trawl through the internet and can't find this.

http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Fight_ ... 5-2008.pdf
MBChristie
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:59 pm
Location: Morayshire

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby Flumpy » Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:36 pm

Pete S wrote:At that games - and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong - a number of competitors had received previous bans for PED and yet they were allowed to compete for their respective countries whilst DC wasn't. It didn't seem fair - it wasn't fair.


You're right it's not fair but there are all kinds of unfair things in the world I care passionately about. That Dwain Chambers should be allowed to run in the Olympics is not one of them. It is of course extremely unfair to those athletes who competed cleanly that Dwain stole both money and medals off them.

It's not fair that some people are allowed to compete and others aren't but the solution is not to change our rules to let cheats in, but to campaign for other nations to change theirs to keep cheats out.
Last edited by Flumpy on Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 1400
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:11 pm

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby Pete S » Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:59 pm

Thanks MB, but this piece of text seems to indicate that you only miss one Games..?

"...may not participate, in any capacity, in the NEXT EDITION of the Games of the Olympiad and of the Olympic Winter Games following the date of expiry of such suspension."

So that means, if the source document is correct, that the IOC only want you to stay away for one Olympic cycle?

Let the campaigning begin!
Pete S
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 11:28 am

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby Flumpy » Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:13 pm

Yes that's the new rule. It's a start I suppose.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 1400
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:11 pm

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby sidelined » Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:45 pm

Britain isn't the only country that bans athletes from the Olympics for life if they've failed a drugs test. Sweden (so I believe) does so too. I agree with Flumpy here, who makes some excellent points. I haven't forgotten that after Chambers was initially caught, he tried to claim in his hearing that THG wasn't a banned substance, even though he knew he was full of evey PED you can think of. He attempted to get into two other sports - Amercan football and rugby - and only after he failed did he make a permanent move back to athletics.

But to be fair to Chambers, this strikes me as a non-story. In the BBC article he says he isn't thinking about next year at all. Also, I'd be surprised if he could afford to go to court again. The last thing the BOA and London 2012 would want is to have a high-profile court case that suggests to the rest of the world that Britain is softening its stance against drug users. If Chambers has any regard for the image of the sport he'll leave well alone.

By the way, Pete S, the reason I don't reply to your thread about coaching is that I'm not a coach!
sidelined
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:19 pm

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby flashcoach » Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:53 am

Pete s is way off the mark, his thinking "appeasement" leads to a form of corruption which is pervading society as a whole, what we need to be doing is setting rules and sticking to them, this is the safest form of progress and ultimately will lead to a healthier state of athletics.
flashcoach
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:49 pm

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby trickstat » Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:57 am

Flash - for once I am inclined to agree with you!
trickstat
 
Posts: 1148
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:09 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby flashcoach » Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:03 pm

Yahoooooo :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8)
flashcoach
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:49 pm

Re: Chambers Does Not Rule Out London 2012

Postby Pete S » Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:54 pm

Flash/Trickstat,

Thanks for the contribution - just a quick correction to your assertion that I am "way of the mark"..

..more correctly I am way off your mark - which, with respect, is a slightly different thing.

I know what you're saying about appeasement but laying the blame for society's ills at the door of one errant athlete is over-egging the pudding a bit. I don't see it as simply as some do.

I understand all that you've said and it makes perfect sense, however, I came into athletics as a coach because I am basically a fan of the human spirit - the refusing to lie down and be beaten...

I will always stand with the athletes (not always agreeing with what they have done..) because I know intimately the road they tread. It's a hard hard game and I've lived through the ups and downs with a few of them - enough to know and respect the level of effort involved. I don't know the background of either of you - perhaps coaches? Spectators? Before I was so heavily involved in the sport I would have found it easy to reach a conclusion/standpoint on the issue of PED. Now it's not so easy for me, not so straightforward. Perhaps I am too close to the coalface? But that is where I am, helping young people to realise their dreams - if that induces myopia then so be it - I'd rather do what I do than have perfect eyesight.

Roosevelt:

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

You will accuse me of romanticising DC's plight - mea culpa - but I see a young man who has done all he can to rehabilitate himself - what more could he do? Blonska did it once - was allowed back - and did it again. No contest there - be off with you..and don't come back. You had your second chance. But the viewing public is guilty of romanticising when it suits them - take a drive up the Ventoux in the South of France and have a look at the pile of water bottles left by cyclists in memory of Tommy Simpson.. No, this debate is not as simple as some would have us believe. If Simpson died as a result of PED's then some of the blame at least lies with those who fuelled his desperation to win.

The Olympic movement is wonderful but it is not a paragon of virtue - have a look at Jim Thorpe's entry in Wikipedia.. I wonder if, in years to come, we will view a drugs suspension in the same light as we now view professionalism..

Some people see this debate as very polarised - you break the rules, you're out. I will never see it so clinically. It takes many many years to rise to the top of the legal profession - if the making of judgements were that simple a one year NVQ would suffice.

As I said previously, we will have to agree to disagree, but if a young man has paid his debt to society/the sport and reaches out to ask for forgiveness and to be included once more..at the most basic human level we should at least listen..

To finalise - the IOC rules are less stringent than the BOA ones - why? Are we setting out to be some island of virtue in the North Atlantic?
Last edited by Pete S on Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pete S
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 11:28 am

Next

Return to Anti-Doping

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 

Athletics Weekly Limited © 2010. Terms of use

Design by The Church of London