Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

[LiamRiley]

Talk about unconstructive debate! Side-stepping the mud slinging...

The moralities of society do indeed change, but the rules of the time and the prevailing social consciousness do still affect our interpretations at different times. The lack of drug rules (and poor general understanding of drugs at the time) leads us to vindicate Thomas Hicks. The presence of drug rules (and increasing societal disparagement of drug usage in sport) leads us to vilify Ben Johnson.

As much as I understand those who vilified him, I think it is probably about time we dropped the "Big Bad Ben" outlook. It is a very shallow one which purposefully does not seek to place him beside his peers. In Johnson's BBC interview 18 months ago, I found myself in frequent agreement when he was describing his competitors and peers.

Where he still falls down is in his self perception - I remember in his interview he said that his peers were cheating, but that he was not cheating because he intended to "level the playing field". These are incompatible views. All these years, he has failed to say the real situation: many of his peers were cheating, just as he was alongside them. This is a less morally repugnant reality than the one we are often presented with.

In my view, it is not reasonable to award Johnson any medals, but it is desirable to understand the environment he competed in. Underneath all the scape-goating and hysteria lies a fascinating story of desire and human failing.

[readtherules]

liam r

As it happens the thrust of my point was not about BJ.It was that BOA may be following a principle that has run its time rather like many others in sport.
However I have a great degree of agreement with what you have written and wonder if DC may be viewed in the same revisionist way you assess BJ.

As for not cheating 'cos the others were at it is a interesting concept.Perhaps if it was presented as trying not to get an unfair advantage then that might be a different perspective.

In the era of high and open drug use an athlete who took drugs was not seen by his fellow peers as a cheat but a Perris W type breach was.All down to social contruction and how insiders view it differently from outsiders.

[BigGut]

To me it makes no difference if to my opinion on BJ if they were all cheating. That just makes them cheats too.

You still have not shown a single example of where somebody who was disqualified for cheating was subsequently seen as the true champion. You say that many forms of breaking the rules have been seen differently later on. Can you give an example of somebody who deliberately cheated and was disqualified at the time but then re-instated years later because the rules were diferent in later years? I don't mean where people have fought discrimination based on creed or colour, I mean deliberately deceived and cheated other people. You keep saying that this can happen, but you can't give a single example.

[readtherules]

big g

The other tweedle now has a go and ignores what has been said to tweedle dum.Thus a dual movement that frustrates any sensible debate.

Yes if they all cheat then by one definition ,such as yours, they are all cheats.But there is an insiders definition for those in the competion and they see it as not cheated.Depends where you are looking from.

You have failed to grasp my point about moral princples.I have made it several times to you pair of tweedles.The BJ is a minor point looking into the future when the present paradigm could well have been revised beyond recognition.It may happen,unlikely, but it may.That is the intellectual jump to make.You have also failed to grasp my point about the ban on BJ.It was based on his test in '88.If that was to be accepted as sabatage then the ban would have to be recinded.Then we have to deal with his admission.They never took any action on this.They cant go back and have a case against him because of the staute of limitations.This argument may well have some substantial hole on it but to say he was a cheat does not ,in itself,make a hole.

I will say it yet again and I do hope that the pair of tweedles are paying attention.Moral priniples change in sport and this is and will continue to influence the way rules are contructed and interpreted to the point that Dwain's sermon may fall and in my opinion should fall ,on those with a moral persective in keeping with the times and we will see him competing in London .

[fangio]

Oh dear, still using the Twedles word, it is clear that it is deliberately to wind up now. Hence I woudl request that you stop the pretence that you are a serious poster.

With regard to your recent comments, I have understood all along that you are saying that opinions change, yes they do. I have never taken issue wit that, so the pretence that i have not understood it is ridiculous.

I have stated that opinions changing will not result in a retrospective changing of the rules to allow BJ to get the gold back. I have not said or implied that opinions will not change, I udnerstand that, and nothign I have said contradicts it.

There is not an "insiders definition" for those in the competition, there is a cheat's definition for those who are cheating and want to pretend it is ok to brea the rules. Unless you are saying that everyone in the competition is a cheat then it is deliberately misleading to state (and I am quoting to avoid the accusation that I am changing your words) "there is an insiders definition for those in the competion and they see it as not cheated." Clean atheltes who are not cheating will not agree with the insiders definition.

The idea that if a fault is shown with the testing that it will be examined in isolation to all other evidence is incorrect. Evidence from Dubin (not Dublin) is an admission of guilt. There is no statute of limitations issue, because the Statute of Limitations refers to action starting, Johnsons case was started within the 8 year required period. Any appeal of the ban would look at ALL of the evidence, potentially including the admission. The ban would not "have to be recinded".

[readtherules]

Fangio

How predictable that you as the other half of the tweedles should respond to my post to your chum.Not trying to wind you up but to make a point about your combined tactics.

There is an insiders defintion of cheat.It was the athletes who busted Perris whilst exhanging notes on drug use.

BJ's admission at Dulin was not concidered for his ban that followed from the '88 test.Interested in your point about statute of limitations having started etc.You may well be correct but at present not at all sure.Any appeal may not be de nova and could/would only deal with evidence at the orginal hearing.I am not too sure,and I have said this,but at least we are at a point where the issues are clear.A key matter would be if it was a de nova appeal.

Thank you for you constructive and helpful post.I hope big g does not come in and we have to start again.

[trevorp]

Any appeal may not be de nova ...

It's de novo.
If you stuck to phrases and concepts you understood (and could spell) then your posts would be easier to read.

[BigGut]

One minute you complain that you post to one poster and the next that a poster hasn't takenn into account your posts to a 3rd party. You can't have it both ways.

There is no tactic here. I don't live on this site permenantly available to answer your posts. SO sometimes Fangio logs in before me somwetimes the other way around.

I do note that you still haven't given an example of a single cheat who was then deigned not to be a cheat later on when the rules changed. I know that rules change, and often with public opinion on the rules, but I also note that people who cheat are always cheats even if the rules change afterwards.

I will give you a reverse analogy. Norman Hunter would have lasted about 5 minutes on the pitch if he played like he did back in the 60s under todays rules. The rules have changed. As a result do people now judge Hunters behaviour by the rules of today and say he was a cheat and a thug, of course not. He played the game under the rules of the day and deserves to be treated as a great player of the age. Conversely even if the rules change in the future and drug taking is now allowed Ben Johnson witll still have been a dirty cheat, even if his behaviour would now be allowed by the rules.

Please also note that BJ is guilty by his own words. Even if the individual test he got caught on was overturned as sabotage, and let's be clear that this hasn't actually happened in the 24 years that have past, he is guitly as charged. he did take drugs with the intention to cheat in full knowledge of the fact he was cheating. Much as Marion Jones wasn't caught by a test, his own words comdemn him.

I also hate the idea that there is an insiders view. You are basically saying that cheats are not cheating because other cheats think it is OK. THEY ARE ALL CHEATING SCUM!!! Show me people who are clean saying that cheating is perfectly OK. I don't care if other people who are cheating think it's OK. It's not OK. The rules are very clear that it is not OK.

The more you post the more you sound like somebody who is deperate to defend cheats, I just don't get why any clean hard working athlete would condone deliberately cheating. Frankly I find it sickening.

[readtherules]

One minute you complain that you post to one poster and the next that a poster hasn't takenn into account your posts to a 3rd party. You can't have it both ways.

There is no tactic here. I don't live on this site permenantly available to answer your posts. SO sometimes Fangio logs in before me somwetimes the other way around.

I do note that you still haven't given an example of a single cheat who was then deigned not to be a cheat later on when the rules changed. I know that rules change, and often with public opinion on the rules, but I also note that people who cheat are always cheats even if the rules change afterwards.

I will give you a reverse analogy. Norman Hunter would have lasted about 5 minutes on the pitch if he played like he did back in the 60s under todays rules. The rules have changed. As a result do people now judge Hunters behaviour by the rules of today and say he was a cheat and a thug, of course not. He played the game under the rules of the day and deserves to be treated as a great player of the age. Conversely even if the rules change in the future and drug taking is now allowed Ben Johnson witll still have been a dirty cheat, even if his behaviour would now be allowed by the rules.

Please also note that BJ is guilty by his own words. Even if the individual test he got caught on was overturned as sabotage, and let's be clear that this hasn't actually happened in the 24 years that have past, he is guitly as charged. he did take drugs with the intention to cheat in full knowledge of the fact he was cheating. Much as Marion Jones wasn't caught by a test, his own words comdemn him.

I also hate the idea that there is an insiders view. You are basically saying that cheats are not cheating because other cheats think it is OK. THEY ARE ALL CHEATING SCUM!!! Show me people who are clean saying that cheating is perfectly OK. I don't care if other people who are cheating think it's OK. It's not OK. The rules are very clear that it is not OK.

The more you post the more you sound like somebody who is deperate to defend cheats, I just don't get why any clean hard working athlete would condone deliberately cheating. Frankly I find it sickening.

Hunter.The rules have not changed it is the instructions to ref etc that have changed.Hunter played the game by the insiders rules of the time.

You may hate that there are insiders views but they exist.

The rules are still unclear;we still dont know who are cheats.

You utterly fail to deal with a de nova appeal not covering BJ.He may still be a cheat but that does not automatically mean he will continue to be found guilty.You say he is guilty as charged;please note that he was charged with his '88 test failure not other admissions.Jones was charged with her admissions,BJ was not.

The doping rules have yet to change so we dont know what will happen.However I state yet again and again and again that doping changes you indicate are not the changes we have seen within the corpes of moral principles that litter sport and I have suggested such.Please please pay due attention.

[BigGut]

If you are going to debate with me then stop treating your opinion as fact and start getting your facts right. The fierce tackle from begind was banned in a rule change brought in by fifa in1998.

[readtherules]

If you are going to debate with me then stop treating your opinion as fact and start getting your facts right. The fierce tackle from begind was banned in a rule change brought in by fifa in1998.

Not stated my opinion as fact just got a minor bit of fact wrong.But it is not that tackle from behind thing that changed football and you know it .And i bet that if we look at the rules it was all tackles from behind,but who the heck cares.You continue to take one matter of minor detail onward and miss the thrust of the argument.Normally you do this in conjunction with tweedle dum in an attempt to frustrate debate in areas you hold dear.

[fangio]

There are "insiders views" that is a phrase you are usig for a more accurate description which is "excuses that cheats make to condone their cheating". Persoally I do not care on bit about taking into account such "views", they are not "insiders" views ony those who compete whilst cheating, or apologists for such. Other "insiders views" come from those in the sport who compete clean, their views, as peopel who are sticking to the rules are the ones that count. Why base anything on the views of those who cannto stick to what is already in place. They are dishonest people, as are those who condone such behaviour.

As for the "minor point thing you have just raised as frustrrating debate, no, it's accuracy. If you want to bring up a real life situation to bac your argument then it needs to be accurate. Bandying about things that simply are not true is something that frustrates debate.

Similar to the Hunter case was one you brought up, Abrahams, never broke a rule so not disqualified, rules changed later, still not disqualified and not vilified, he competed clean by the definitions of the sport a the time. That is the antithesis of the situation you described with BJ, yet you gave it as a supporting argument.

Regading De Novo cases. If the case was de novo then evidecne from both sides would be heard, if the case was not de novo, then only the judgement based upon the evidecne given coudl eb questioned, and that means no extra evidence, including any of the hypothetical and so far unevidecned sabotage, coudl be given. So either fresh evidence from both sides or evidence from neithe side may be given. It seems you are, as someone else pointed out, yet again bandying about phrases and legal terms of which you have zero understanding. It's all just a distratcion anyway, as the WADA rules lay out how appeals are conducted, why don't you look them up (I'll give you a clue they allow evidence from both sides), instead of throwing in irrelevant legal phrases of which you have no understanding? Are you trying to look clever? If so let me assure you that it has the opposite effect.

[readtherules]

Fangio.

Morning tweedle dum.

Please refer to answers provided to tweedle dee earlier and stop frustrating debate by raising points already covered or by providing mis -representation of what I have said.Your combined actions in concert with the other tweedle are a deliberate attempt to kill topics and thus my use of tweedles is to draw attention to this joint tactic.


For examples ;Abrahams; never gave this point to as a supporting argument for BJ.I do wish you would pay due attention.

[fangio]

So no answer about de novo then? Thought not, tiy are clearly wrong so run away from answering it.

Please stop posting up jargon you don't understand, examples that have no relevence to the point at hand, statements as if they are facts, personal jibes that have nothing to do with the points raised, and tangential points just to run away from others clear indiciation that you are wrong. These five persistent actions by yourself devalue any debate at all, and make you appear incapable of discussing any points in a constructive manner.

[readtherules]

Fangio.

I wish to adopt your above post and pass it back via the looking glass as it reflects all the crits thats others have made about you on this and other forums.
The only way to really deal with your posts is to do a four page essay in order to deal with all the diversional tactics that you and tweedle dee use to avoid the core issues at hand.You pick on illustrations ,take them out of context,twist them out of context and then after much effort you refuse to deal with them.
I accept there is a point about de nova but as we do not know the exact rules at the time we cant really determine what could be possible.We dont know the rules of the nation holding jurisdiction.That there may well be sabatage has to cause rethinking on BJ and causes us to reflect on the consequences of this.
You and your mate have not provided one bit of fresh opinion or thought;you have just nit picked at any originality and attempted to cut it off.Howman has very recently repeated his comments that clever cheats will always get away with it unless,as a possibility, Police/Customs get involved.The Costs of drug control continue to escalate,nations are stiil non WADA compliant,WADA labs fail and are struck off,cases take 6 yrs to resolve etc etc.All you pair can do is snipe from the side.Yes drug control would seem a fine aspiration and catching cheats as opposed to the error some is great.We have human rights to be thought of and how these laws they may be applicable to the millions who do sport in this country.What if it is to be an aspiration beyond any hope of delivering.What if ? Please think outside the box .Lets put it in perspective against the rest of the downsides of super elite sport and think of how else we can protect the health of sportspeople.
Is all this beyond the pair of you ?

[marcusfond171]

Hi, there!! Nice posting. These cheating cases are normal in athletes but punishment is always harsh. I don’t understand why they don’t learn a lesson from other athlete’s conviction in cheating cases but still making the same mistake again and again that leads them to ban for years.

ranker

[hugh james]

all boring crap... go and retire chambers... do yourself a favour.. its just pathetic...give us all a break.. its worse listening to what chambers is up to then coronation street....... just go dwain !!!just go with a little dignity////

[hugh james]

also does... doping correlate to IQ..or the lack thereof